april 2018

50-State Property Tax

Comparison Study
Fo r Tax es Pa i d i n 2017
50-State Property Tax Comparison Study, Copyright © April 2018
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence
This book may not be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission from Lincoln Institute of
Land Policy and Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence

For information contact:

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
Department of Valuation and Taxation
113 Brattle Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
617-661-3016

Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence

85 East 7th Place, Suite 250
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
651-224-7477

Cover image: © iStockphoto/kropic

 Acknowledgements
This report would not have been possible with the cooperation and assistance of many
individuals. Research, calculations, and drafting were done by Aaron Twait2 and Adam H.
Langley1. The report benefited greatly from feedback provided by Anthony Flint1, Mark
Haveman2, Will Jason1, Daphne A. Kenyon1, George W. McCarthy1, Emily McKeigue1, Semida
Munteanu1, Andrew Reschovsky1, and Joan M. Youngman1.
1
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
2
Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence

About the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy

The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy seeks to improve quality of life through the effective use,
taxation, and stewardship of land. A nonprofit private operating foundation whose origins date to
1946, the Lincoln Institute researches and recommends creative approaches to land as a solution
to economic, social, and environmental challenges. Through education, training, publications,
and events, we integrate theory and practice to inform public policy decisions worldwide. With
locations in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Washington, D.C., Phoenix, and Beijing, we organize
our work in seven major areas: Planning and Urban Form, Valuation and Taxation, International
and Institute-Wide Initiatives, Latin America and the Caribbean, People's Republic of China,
the Babbitt Center for Land and Water Policy, and the Center for Community Investment.

About the Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence

The Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence was founded in 1926 to promote sound tax policy,
efficient spending, and accountable government.

We pursue this mission by

 educating and informing Minnesotans about sound fiscal policy;
 providing state and local policy makers with objective, non-partisan research about the
impacts of tax and spending policies
 advocating for the adoption of policies reflecting principles of fiscal excellence.

MCFE generally defers from taking positions on levels of government taxation and spending
believing that citizens, through their elected officials, are responsible for determining the level of
government they are willing to support with their tax dollars. Instead, MCFE seeks to ensure that
revenues raised to support government adhere to good tax policy principles and that the spending
supported by these revenues accomplishes its purpose in an efficient, transparent, and
accountable manner.

The Center is a non-profit, non-partisan group supported by membership dues. For information
about membership, call (651) 224-7477, or visit our web site at www.fiscalexcellence.org.
 50-State Property Tax Comparison Study
For Taxes Paid in 2017

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................6
Why Property Tax Rates Vary Across Cities ...............................................................................9
Homestead Property Taxes ........................................................................................................ 14
Commercial Property Taxes ...................................................................................................... 19
Industrial Property Taxes .......................................................................................................... 24
Apartment Property Taxes ......................................................................................................... 29
Classification and Preferential Treatment of Homestead Properties ........................................... 33
Property Tax Assessment Limits ............................................................................................... 40
Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 43

Appendix Tables
1. Why Property Tax Rates Vary Across Cities
1a. Factors Correlated with Homestead Property Tax Rates in Large U.S. Cities ................ 50
1b. Factors Correlated with Commercial Property Tax Rates in Large U.S. Cities .............. 53
1c. Correlates of Cities’ Effective Tax Rates on Homestead Properties............................... 56
1d. Correlates of Cities’ Effective Tax Rates on Commercial Properties............................. 57
2. Homestead Property Taxes
2a. Largest City in Each State: Median Valued Homes ....................................................... 58
2b. Largest City in Each State: Median Valued Homes, with Assessment Limits ................ 60
2c. Largest City in Each State: Homes worth $150,000 and $300,000 ................................ 62
2d. Largest Fifty U.S. Cities: Median Valued Homes ......................................................... 64
2e. Largest Fifty U.S. Cities: Median Valued Homes, with Assessment Limits................... 66
2f. Largest Fifty U.S. Cities: Homes worth $150,000 and $300,000 ................................... 68
2g. Selected Rural Municipalities: Median Valued Homes ................................................. 70
2h. Selected Rural Municipalities: Homes worth $150,000 and $300,000........................... 72
3. Commercial Property Taxes
3a. Largest City in Each State ............................................................................................ 74
3b. Largest Fifty U.S. Cities ............................................................................................... 76
3c. Selected Rural Municipalities ....................................................................................... 78
4. Industrial Property Taxes
4a. Largest City in Each State (Personal Property = 50% of Total Parcel Value) ................ 80
4b. Largest City in Each State (Personal Property = 60% of Total Parcel Value) ................ 82
4c. Largest Fifty U.S. Cities (Personal Property = 50% of Total Parcel Value) ................... 84
4d. Largest Fifty U.S. Cities (Personal Property = 60% of Total Parcel Value) ................... 86
4e. Selected Rural Municipalities (Personal Property = 50% of Total Parcel Value) ........... 88
4f. Selected Rural Municipalities (Personal Property = 60% of Total Parcel Value) ........... 90
4g. Preferential Treatment of Personal Property, Largest City in Each State ....................... 92
5. Apartment Property Taxes
5a. Largest City in Each State ............................................................................................ 94
5b. Largest Fifty U.S. Cities ............................................................................................... 96
5c. Selected Rural Municipalities ....................................................................................... 98
6. Classification and Preferential Treatment of Homestead Properties
6a. Commercial-Homestead Classification Ratio for Largest City in Each State ............... 100
6b. Apartment-Homestead Classification Ratio for Largest City in Each State ................. 102
7. Impact of Assessment Limits............................................................................................... 104
Executive Summary
As the largest source of revenue raised by local governments, a well-functioning property tax
system is critical for promoting municipal fiscal health. This report documents the wide range of
property tax rates in more than 100 U.S. cities and helps explain why they vary so widely. This
context is important because high property tax rates usually reflect some combination of heavy
property tax reliance with low sales and income taxes, low home values that drive up the tax rate
needed to raise enough revenue, or higher local government spending and better public services.
In addition, some cities use property tax classification, which can result in considerably higher
tax rates on business and apartment properties than on homesteads.

This report provides the most meaningful data available to compare cities’ property taxes by
calculating the effective tax rate: the tax bill as a percent of a property’s market value. Data are
available for 73 large U.S. cities and a rural municipality in each state, with information on four
different property types (homestead, commercial, industrial, and apartment properties), and
statistics on both net tax bills (i.e. $3,000) and effective tax rates (i.e. 1.5 percent). These data
have important implications for cities because the property tax is a key part of the package of
taxes and public services that affects cities’ competitiveness and quality of life.

Why Property Tax Rates Vary Across Cities

To understand why property tax rates are high or low in a particular city, it is critical to know
why property taxes vary so much across cities. This report uses statistical analysis to identify
four key factors that explain most of the variation in property tax rates.

Property tax reliance is one of the main reasons why tax rates vary across cities. While some
cities raise most of their revenue from property taxes, others rely more on alternative revenue
sources. Cities with high local sales or income taxes do not need to raise as much revenue from
the property tax, and thus have lower property tax rates on average. For example, this report
shows that Bridgeport (CT) has one of the highest effective tax rates on a median valued home,
while Birmingham (AL) has one of the lowest rates. However, in Bridgeport city residents pay
no local sales or income taxes, whereas Birmingham residents pay both sales and income taxes to
local governments. Consequently, despite the fact that Bridgeport has much higher property
taxes, total local taxes are considerably higher in Birmingham ($2,695 vs. $2,068 per capita).

Property values are the other crucial factor explaining differences in property tax rates. Cities
with high property values can impose a lower tax rate and still raise at least as much property tax
revenue as a city with low property values. For example, consider San Francisco and Detroit,
which have the highest and lowest median home values in this study. After accounting for
assessment limits, the average property tax bill on a median valued home for the large cities in
this report is $2,992. To raise that amount from a median valued home, the effective tax rate
would need to be 24 times higher in Detroit than in San Francisco—6.88 percent versus 0.29
percent.

Two additional factors that help explain variation in tax rates are the level of local government
spending and whether cities tax homesteads at lower rates than other types of property (referred
to as “classification”). Holding all else equal, cities with higher spending will need to have

1
 higher property tax rates. Classification imposes lower property taxes on homesteads, but higher
property taxes on business and apartment properties.

Homestead Property Taxes

There are wide variations across the country in property taxes on owner-occupied primary
residences, otherwise known as homesteads. An analysis of the largest city in each state shows
that the average effective tax rate on a median-valued homestead was 1.49 percent in 2017 for
this group of 53 cities.1 At that rate, a home worth $200,000 would owe $2,980 in property taxes
(1.50% x $200,000). On the high end, there are three cities with effective tax rates that are
roughly 2.5 times higher than the average – Bridgeport, Aurora (IL), and Detroit. Conversely,
there are seven cities where tax rates are less than half of the study average – Honolulu,
Charleston (SC), Boston, Cheyenne (WY), Denver, Birmingham (AL), and Washington DC.

Highest and Lowest Effective Property Tax Rates on a Median Valued Home (2017)
Highest Property Tax Rates Lowest Property Tax Rates
Why: Low property tax reliance,
1 Bridgeport (CT) 3.81% Why: High property tax reliance 49 Denver (CO) 0.66%
high home values, classification
2 Aurora (IL) 3.76% Why: High property tax reliance 50 Cheyenne (WY) 0.65% Why: Low property tax reliance
Why: High home values,
3 Detroit (MI) 3.63% Why: Low property values 51 Boston (MA) 0.51%
Classification shifts tax to business
Why: Classification shifts tax to
4 Newark (NJ) 3.16% Why: High property tax reliance 52 Charleston (SC) 0.50%
business
Why: Low property values, Why: High home values, low local
5 Milwaukee (WI) 2.57% 53 Honolulu (HI) 0.31%
high property tax reliance gov’t spending, classification
Note: Data for all cities: Figure 2 (page 18), Appendix Table 1a (page 50), and Appendix Table 2a (page 58).

The average tax rate for these cities fell very slightly between 2016 and 2017, from 1.497 percent
to 1.495 percent, with increases in 24 cities, decreases in 27, and no change in 1 city. 2 The
largest increase was in Sioux Falls (SD), where the effective rate rose by about 11 percent, which
drove the city’s ranking up from 23rd to 20th highest. The next largest increases were in
Burlington (VT), Chicago, Billings (MT), Fargo (ND), and Portland (OR). The largest decrease
was in Boston, which had a 15.9 percent decline in its effective tax rate. The next largest declines
were in Charlotte (NC), Louisville, Portland (ME), and Detroit.

Note that differences in property values across cities mean that some cities with high tax rates
can still have low tax bills on a median valued home if they have low home values, and vice
versa. For example, Louisville and Los Angeles have similar tax rates on a median valued home,
but because the median valued home is worth so much more in Los Angeles ($594k vs. $151k),
the tax bill is far higher in Los Angeles (3rd highest) than in Louisville (43rd highest).

Effective tax rates rise with home values in about half of the cities (27 of 53), and this pattern has
a progressive impact on the property tax distribution. Usually, this relationship occurs because of

1
The largest cities in each state includes 53 cities, because it includes Washington (DC) plus two cities in Illinois
and New York since property taxes in Chicago and New York City are so different than the rest of the state.
2
The largest city in South Carolina changed from Columbia in 2016 to Charleston in 2017, so the report provides
year-to-year changes for only 52 of the 53 “largest cities in each state”.

2
 homestead exemptions that are set to a fixed dollar amount. For example, a $20,000 exemption
provides a 20 percent tax cut on a $100,000 home, a 10 percent cut on a $200,000 home, and a 5
percent cut on a $400,000 home. The increase in effective tax rates with home values is steepest
in Boston, Atlanta, Honolulu, Washington (DC), and New Orleans.

Commercial Property Taxes

There are also significant variations across cities in commercial property taxes, which include
taxes on office buildings and similar properties. In 2017, the effective tax rate on a commercial
property worth $1 million averaged 2.05 percent across the largest cities in each state. The
highest rates were in Detroit, New York City, Bridgeport (CT), Chicago, and Providence (RI), all
of which had effective tax rates that were at least three-quarters higher than the average for these
cities. On the other hand, rates were less than half of the average in Fargo (ND), Virginia Beach,
Honolulu, Seattle, and Cheyenne (WY).

Highest and Lowest Effective Property Tax Rates on $1-Million Commercial Property
Highest Property Tax Rates Lowest Property Tax Rates
Why: Low local gov’t spending,
1 Detroit (MI) 4.24% Why: Low property values 49 Fargo (ND) 1.01%
Low property tax reliance
Why: High local gov’t spending, Why: High property values,
2 New York (NY) 3.90% 50 Virginia Beach (VA) 0.96%
Classification shifts tax to business Low local gov’t spending
Why: High property values,
3 Bridgeport (CT) 3.81% Why: High property tax reliance 51 Honolulu (HI) 0.91%
Low local gov’t spending
Why: High local gov’t spending, Why: High property values,
4 Chicago (IL) 3.78% 52 Seattle (WA) 0.89%
Classification shifts tax to business Low property tax reliance
5 Providence (RI) 3.68% Why: High property tax reliance 53 Cheyenne (WY) 0.66% Why: Low property tax reliance
Note: Analysis includes an additional $200k in fixtures (office equipment, etc.)
Data for all cities: Figure 3 (page 23), Appendix Table 1b (page 53), and Appendix Table 3a (page 74).

The cities with the largest drops in their effective tax rates from 2016 to 2017 were Indianapolis,
whose rate fell by 14 percent and ranking dropped from 11th to 16th, and Virginia Beach where
the effective tax rate fell by 9 percent and whose ranking dropped from 48th to 50th. Salt Lake
City is the only other city with a significant decline in its ranking. The largest increase was in
Columbus (OH), where the effective tax rate increased by 25 percent, which drove the city’s
ranking up from 30th to 23rd highest. In Baltimore, the ranking rose five places (from 16th to 11th),
while in three other cities (Jackson, MS; Portland, ME; and Sioux Falls, SD), commercial
property tax burdens climbed three places.

Preferential Treatment for Homeowners

Many cities have preferences built into their property tax systems that result in lower effective
tax rates for certain classes of property, with these features usually designed to benefit
homeowners. The “classification ratio” describes these preferences by comparing the effective
tax rate on land and buildings for two types of property. For example, if a city has a 3.0%
effective tax rate on commercial properties and a 1.5% effective tax rate on homestead
properties, then the commercial-homestead classification ratio is 2.0 (3.0% divided by 1.5%).

3
An analysis of the largest cities in each state shows an average commercial-homestead
classification ratio of 1.64, meaning that on average commercial properties experience an
effective tax rate that is 64% higher than homesteads. Roughly a fourth of the cities (14 of 53)
have classification ratios above 2.0, meaning that commercial properties face an effective tax
rate that is at least double that for homesteads.

Preferential Treatment of Homeowners: Ratio of Effective Tax Rate on

Commercial and Apartment Properties to the Rate on Homestead Properties (2017)
Commercial vs. Homestead Ratio Apartment vs. Homestead Ratio
1 Boston (MA) 4.24 1 New York (NY) 4.80
2 New York (NY) 3.97 2 Charleston (SC) 3.10
3 Honolulu (HI 3.56 3 Indianapolis (IN) 2.35
4 Denver (CO) 3.50 4 Charleston (WV) 2.26
5 Charleston (SC) 3.10 5 Birmingham (AL) 2.18
Note: Commercial-homestead ratio compares rate on $1 million commercial building to median valued home.
Apartment-homestead ratio compares rate on $600k apartment building to median valued home.
Data for all cities: Figures 6a and 6b (Page 37-38), and Appendix 6 (Page 100).

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

apartments facing an effective tax rate that is 33% higher than homesteads on average. There are
five cities where apartments face an effective tax rate that is at least double that for homesteads,
with New York City being a major outlier since the rate on apartments is almost five times
higher than the rate on a median valued home. It is important to note that while renters do not
pay property tax bills directly, they do pay property taxes indirectly since landlords are able to
pass through some or all of their property taxes in the form of higher rents.

There are three types of statutory preferences built into property tax systems that can lead to
lower effective tax rates on homesteads than other property types: the assessment ratio, the
nominal tax rate, and exemptions and credits. In total, 40 of the 53 cities favor homesteads over
commercial properties. 19 of these 40 cities benefit homeowners using at least two of these three
statutory preferences. In 13 cities preferential treatment for homeowners is delivered through
exemptions or credits alone, while in 8 cities preferences are delivered exclusively through
differences in assessment ratios or nominal tax rates. Similarly, 36 cities have statutory
preferences favoring homesteads relative to apartments, but only 10 offer more than one
preference. Five cities have preferential assessment ratios and/or nominal tax rates only, while
20 cities offer homestead exemptions or credits alone.

Property Tax Assessment Limits

Since the late 1970s, an increasing number of states have adopted property tax limits, including
constraints on tax rates, tax levies, and assessed values. This report accounts for the impact of
limits on tax rates and levies implicitly, because of how these laws impact cities’ tax rates, but it
is necessary to use an explicit modeling strategy to account for assessment limits.

Assessment limits typically restrict growth in the assessed value for individual parcels and then
reset the taxable value of properties when they are sold. Therefore, the level of tax savings
provided from assessment limits largely depends on two factors: how long a homeowner has

4
owned her home and appreciation of the home’s market value relative to the allowable growth of
its assessed value. As a result, assessment limits can lead to major differences in property tax
bills between owners of nearly identical homes based on how long they have owned their home.

This report estimates the impact of assessment limits by calculating the difference in taxes
between newly purchased homes and homes that have been owned for the average duration in
each city, for median valued homes. For example, in Los Angeles the average home has been
owned for 14 years and the median home value is $593,500. Because of the state’s assessment
limit, someone who has owned their home for 14 years would pay 44 percent less in property
taxes than the owner of a newly-purchased home, even though both homes are worth $593,500.
The largest discrepancy is in New York City, which has an assessment limit that has capped
growth in assessed values for residential properties since 1981, and unlike most assessment
limits does not reset when the property is sold. As a result, the owner of a median valued home
in New York City ($569,700) built prior to 1981 would face less than half the effective tax rate
than the owner of a newly-built median valued home despite them having identical values.
Assessment limits have the largest impacts (i.e., taxes reduced by 30% or more) in New York
City; seven of the eight California cities studied; the two Florida cities studied; and Portland,
Oregon. Of the 29 cities in this report that are affected by parcel-specific assessment limits, new
homeowners face higher property tax bills than existing homeowners in 25 cities. All four cities
where no home value was sheltered were in Texas: Austin, El Paso, Houston, and San Antonio.

Conclusion
Property taxes range widely across cities in the United States. This report not only shows which
cities have high or low effective property tax rates, but also explains why. Cities will tend to
have higher property tax rates if they have high property tax reliance, low property values, or
high local government expenditures. In addition, some cities use property tax classification,
which can result in considerably higher tax rates on business and apartment properties than on
homesteads. By calculating the effective property tax rate, this report provides the most
meaningful data available to compare cities’ property tax burdens. These data have important
implications for cities because the property tax is a key part of the package of taxes and public
services that affects cities’ competitiveness and quality of life.

5
Introduction
The property tax is one of the largest taxes paid by American households and businesses and
funds many essential public services, including K-12 education, police and fire protection, and a
wide range of critical infrastructure. Yet it is surprisingly difficult to get good data on property
taxes that are comparable across cities. This report provides the necessary data by accounting for
several key features of major cities’ property tax systems and then calculating the effective tax
rate: the tax bill as a percent of a property’s market value.

High or low effective property tax rates do not in themselves indicate that tax systems are “good”
or “bad.” Evaluating a property tax system requires a broader understanding of the pros and cons
of the property tax, the implications of high or low property tax rates, and the method by which
property tax rates are set. These key issues are outlined below.

The property tax has key strengths as a revenue instrument for local governments: it is the
most stable tax source, it is more progressive than alternative revenue options, and it promotes
local autonomy. Property taxes are more stable over the business cycle than sales and especially
income taxes, so greater property tax reliance helps local governments avoid major revenue
shortfalls during recessions. It also helps localities maintain revenue stability in the face of
fluctuating state and federal aid.3 In addition, the property tax is relatively progressive compared
to the sales tax, which is the other main source of tax revenue for local governments. Whereas
the property tax is largely neutral, the sales tax is highly regressive.4

The property tax is particularly appropriate for local governments because it is imposed on an
immobile tax base. While it is often easy to cross borders in search of a lower sales tax rate,
those who wish to live or locate their business in a particular location cannot avoid paying the
property tax. Thus, local governments have limited ability to charge different sales tax rates than
their neighbors, but have greater control over setting their property tax rate.

A drawback of any local tax is that the tax base can vary widely across communities, but these
disparities can be offset with state aid to local governments. For example, there are significant
differences in property values across communities, just as there are wide disparities in retail sales
and incomes across localities. State government grants to local governments can help offset these
differences to ensure everyone has access to necessary services at affordable tax prices
regardless of where they live. In addition, state-funded circuit breaker programs can help
households whose property taxes are particularly high relative to their income.5

Property taxes are one part of the package of taxes and public services that affects
competitiveness and quality of life. This report shows that many of the cities with high property
tax rates have relatively low sales and income taxes for local governments, so the total local tax

3
Ronald C. Fisher. 2009. “What Policy Makers Should Know About Property Taxes.” Land Lines. Cambridge, MA:
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
4
Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. 2015. “Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All
50 States.”
5
Bowman, John H., Daphne A. Kenyon, Adam Langley, and Bethany P. Paquin. 2009. “Property Tax Circuit
Breakers: Fair and Cost-Effective Relief for Taxpayers.” Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

6
burden for residents and business could still be attractive. Furthermore, state aid may reduce
local property taxes, but this reduction may be offset by higher state taxes.

Similarly, if higher property taxes are used to pay for better public services, then high property
tax rates may not affect competitiveness or quality of life. Many homeowners are willing to pay
higher property taxes to have better public schools and safer neighborhoods. The bottom line is
that it is the total state-local tax burden relative to the quality of public services that determines
competitiveness and quality of life.

Property tax rates are set differently than other tax rates and reflect decisions about local
government spending. Income and sales tax rates usually do not vary much from year-to-year,
which leads to significant revenue fluctuations over the business cycle. In contrast, property tax
rates are usually established after the local government budget is determined by elected officials
and/or voters and the rate is then set to raise the targeted revenue level. However, flexibility in
setting property tax rates can be constrained by state tax limits or political concerns about
property tax burdens. The process for determining property tax rates varies across jurisdictions.

This report allows for meaningful comparisons of cities’ property taxes by calculating the
effective property tax rate—the tax bill as a percent of a property’s market value. For most
taxpayers, the effective tax rate will be significantly different from the nominal or official tax
rate that appears on their tax bill. There are several reasons for this difference. First, many states
only tax a certain percentage of a property’s market value. For example, New Mexico assesses
all property at 33.3 percent of market value for tax purposes, which means that a $300,000 home
would be taxed as if it were worth $100,000. In addition, many states and cities use exemptions
and/or credits to reduce property taxes. For example, a $50,000 homestead exemption would
mean a $200,000 home would be taxed as if it were worth $150,000. Cities also vary in the
accuracy of their assessments of property values for tax purposes. Finally, an analysis of property
tax burdens requires consideration of property taxes paid to all local governments, including
overlying counties and school districts, rather than simply comparing municipal tax rates. This
report accounts for all of these differences in cities’ property tax systems, which is essential for
meaningful comparisons of their tax rates.

This study calculates effective tax rates by analyzing several key features of each city’s
property tax system; it is not a parcel-level analysis of property tax liabilities. The Methodology
section of this report provides details on how effective tax rates are calculated. First, data are
collected for the key elements of property tax systems that determine effective tax rates:
 Total local property tax rate: The nominal tax rate that is most prevalent in the city for
each class of property (a.k.a. statutory tax rate), including taxes paid to the state, city or
township, county, school district, and special taxing districts.
 Assessment ratio (a.k.a. classification rate): The percentage of market value used to
establish a property’s assessed value. For example, a 60 percent assessment ratio means a
$100,000 home would be taxed as if it were worth $60,000.
 Sales ratio: The sales ratio measures the accuracy of assessments by comparing assessed
values to actual sales prices. For example, a 98 percent sales ratio means a $100,000
home would be “on the books” as if it were worth $98,000. This study uses a median or
average sales ratio for all properties in each class in each city. The data come primarily

7
 from sales ratio studies and sometimes from state equalization studies. Those studies are
performed either by state government agencies or by contractors on behalf of state
agencies, and are usually publicly available.
 Exemptions: This study accounts for exemptions that reduce the amount of property value
subject to taxation for the majority of properties in a class for each city. For example, a
$20,000 exemption means a $100,000 home would be taxed as if it were worth $80,000.
 Credits: This study accounts for credits that reduce the tax bill for the majority of
properties in a class for each city. For example, Arkansas has a $350 credit that reduces
the tax bill by $350 for all homesteads in the state. The report also accounts for early
payment discounts that can reduce tax bills in some cities.

With this information, it is possible to calculate typical tax bills in each city for four classes of
property (residential, commercial, industrial, apartments) and several different market values:
Net Tax Bill = {[(Market Value x Sales Ratio) − Exemptions] x Assessment Ratio x Tax Rate} − Credits
First the taxable value is determined, with the market value of the property adjusted using the
sales ratio, then exemptions are subtracted, and then the assessment ratio is applied.6 Next that
taxable value is multiplied by the total property tax rate, and any credits are subtracted. Finally,
the effective tax rate is calculated by dividing the net tax bill by the market value of the property.

It is important to note that this study provides typical effective tax rates, assuming that the
median or average sales ratio represents a typical value for all properties in each class. In
practice, the accuracy of assessments varies across properties, so some parcels will have higher
effective tax rates than reported in this study and some will have lower tax rates. In addition, this
study does not account for exemptions or credits that are available for a minority of taxpayers in
a city, such as exemptions available solely for seniors or veterans, or tax incentives available to
just some businesses or homeowners.

6
Note that exemptions based on assessed valued are subtracted after the assessment ratio is applied.

8
Why Property Tax Rates Vary Across Cities
This report demonstrates that effective property tax rates vary widely across U.S. cities. This
section explores why some cities have relatively high property tax rates while others have much
lower rates. Statistical analysis shows that four key factors explain nearly three-quarters of the
variation in property tax rates. The two most important reasons why tax rates vary across cities
are the extent to which cities rely on the property tax as opposed to other revenue sources, and
the level of property values in each jurisdiction. Two additional factors that help explain
variation in tax rates are the level of local government spending and whether cities tax
homesteads at lower rates than other types of property (referred to as “classification”).

Figure 1: Key Factors Explaining Differences in Property Tax Rates

Percent Change in Effective Tax Rate on Median Valued Home
from 1 Percent Increase in Each Variable
0.82%

0.56%

Commercial Apartment
Median Classification Classification
Home Value Ratio Ratio
Property Tax Local Gov't
Reliance Spending

-0.40%
-0.49%
-0.67%

Appendix 1 shows how these variables affect tax rates on homestead and commercial properties
for each large city included in this report and details the methodology used for this analysis. This
section focuses on homestead property taxes, but our analysis shows that tax rates on business
and apartment properties are driven by the same four key factors.

Property Tax Reliance

One of the main reasons why tax rates vary across cities is that some cities raise most of their
revenue from the property tax, while others rely more on alternative revenue sources.7 Cities
with high local sales or income taxes do not need to raise as much revenue from the property tax,
and thus have lower property tax rates on average. Figure 1 shows that a 1 percent increase in the

7
One way to measure the “importance” of each factor is to look at squared semi-partial correlations, which are
analogous to estimating the R-square between the effective tax rate on a median valued home and each factor,
controlling for the effect of the other factors. For the first regression of Appendix Table 1c, 26% of the variation in
effective tax rates is explained by property tax reliance, 38% is explained by median home values, 6% by local
government spending, 6% by the commercial-homestead classification ratio, and 4% by the apartment-homestead
classification ratios.

9
share of revenue raised by local governments that comes from the property tax is associated with
a 0.82 percent increase in the effective tax rate on a median valued home.

To see how property tax reliance impacts tax rates, compare Bridgeport (CT) and Birmingham
(AL). Bridgeport has the highest effective tax rate on a median valued home in large part
because it has the highest property tax reliance of any large city included in this report. So while
Bridgeport has high property taxes ($2,030 per capita), city residents pay no local sales or
income taxes. In contrast, Birmingham has the 11th lowest effective tax rate on a median valued
home, but also has the fourth lowest reliance on the property tax. As a result, Birmingham
residents have low property taxes ($789 per capita), but also pay a host of other taxes to local
governments, including sales taxes ($989 per capita), income taxes ($382 per capita), and other
local taxes ($535 per capita).8 Consequently, total local taxes are considerably higher in
Birmingham despite the fact that it has much lower property taxes than Bridgeport ($2,695 per
capita vs. $2,068 per capita).

It is important to note that the ability of local governments to tap alternative revenue sources that
would reduce property tax reliance is normally constrained by state law. State governments
usually determine which taxes local governments are authorized to use and set the maximum tax
rate localities are allowed to impose.9

The data on property tax reliance and local government spending that is used for this analysis is
for fiscally standardized cities (FiSCs) rather than for city municipal governments alone. FiSCs
provide estimates of revenues raised from city residents and businesses and spending on their
behalf, whether done by the city government or by overlying county governments, independent
school districts, or special purpose districts. This approach is similar to the methodology used in
this report, which includes property taxes paid to the city government, county government, and
the largest independent school district in each city. The FiSC database is available on the website
of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.10

Property Values
Home values are the other crucial factor explaining differences in property tax rates. Cities with
high property values can impose a lower tax rate and still raise at least as much property tax
revenue as a city with low property values. For example, Figure 1 shows that a 1 percent increase
in the median home value is associated with a 0.67 percent decrease in the effective tax rate on a
median valued home.

For example, consider San Francisco and Detroit, which have the highest and lowest median
home values in this study—$1,024,000 and $43,500 respectively. After accounting for
assessment limits, the average property tax bill on a median valued home in the 73 large cities in
this report is $2,992. To raise that amount from a median valued home, the effective tax rate

8
Data on per capita tax collections in 2015 is from the Lincoln Institute’s Fiscally Standardized Cities database.
9
Michael A. Pagano and Christopher W. Hoene. 2010. “States and the Fiscal Policy Space of Cities.” In The
Property Tax and Local Autonomy, ed. Michael E. Bell, David Brunori, and Joan Youngman, 243-277. Cambridge,
MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
10
http://datatoolkits.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/fiscally-standardized-cities

10
would need to be 24 times higher in Detroit than in San Francisco—6.88 percent versus 0.29
percent. The effective tax rate on a median valued home is actually just 4.2 times higher in
Detroit than San Francisco (2.74% vs. 0.65%), which means San Francisco collects more than
five times more in property taxes from a median valued home ($6,612 vs. $1,194). This is
typical—higher property values usually lead cities to have both lower tax rates and to raise more
revenue for public services. While the difference between San Francisco and Detroit is extreme,
it is common for there to be dramatic differences in property wealth across communities within a
state or region. State government grants to local governments can be used to offset these
differences to help ensure everyone has access to necessary services at affordable property tax
prices regardless of where they live.

This analysis uses the median home value in each city, but no one measure fully captures all
differences in cities’ property wealth. For example, even with identical tax rates on homes and
businesses, cities with larger business tax bases will be able to have lower residential property
tax rates since it usually costs more to provide public services to households than to businesses.11
In addition, the median does not provide any information about the distribution of home values.
Cities with larger concentrations of high value homes (relative to the median in that city) will be
able to have lower tax rates on a median valued home for any given level of public expenditures.

Local Government Spending

The level of local government spending is another reason why property tax rates vary across
cities, although its effect is considerably less than property tax reliance or home values. Holding
all else equal, cities with higher spending will need to have higher property tax rates. For
example, Figure 1 shows that a 1 percent increase in local government spending per capita is
associated with a 0.56 percent increase in the effective tax rate on a median valued home.

Just as property tax rates are driven by a number of key variables, there are several factors that
influence local government spending. In particular, spending is driven by needs, revenue
capacity, costs, and preferences. For example, expenditure needs are higher in cities with larger
shares of school age children or higher crime rates, because local governments in those cities will
need to spend more on K-12 education and police protection to provide the same quality of
education and public safety as cities with fewer children or lower crime. Spending will often be
higher in cities with greater revenue capacity since cities with larger tax bases can raise more
revenue without needing higher tax rates, as discussed above in the section on property values.
Costs also play a role, because cities with higher costs of living and higher private sector wages
will need to pay higher salaries to attract qualified teachers, police, and other local government
employees. Finally, residents in some cities have a higher preference for public spending—which
also means higher taxes—than in other cities.12

11
Ernst & Young LLP and Council on State Taxation. 2017. “Total State and Local Business Taxes: State-by-State
Estimates for Fiscal Year 2016.” Pg. 15-18.
12
For an analysis that looks at the factors that drive differences in spending and revenue across states, see
“Assessing Fiscal Capacities of States: A Representative Revenue System-Representative Expenditure System
Approach, Fiscal Year 2012” by Tracy Gordon, Richard C. Auxier, and John Iselin published by the Urban Institute
(March 8, 2016). For an analysis that looks at cities, see “The Fiscal Health of U.S. Cities” by Howard Chernick and
Andrew Reschovsky in Is Your City Healthy? Measuring Urban Fiscal Health published by the Institute on
Municipal Finance and Governance.

11
Classification and Preferential Treatment of Homestead Properties
Classification is the fourth factor that helps to explain differences across cities in property tax
rates on homesteads. Under classified property tax systems, states and cities build preferences
into their tax systems that result in lower effective tax rates for certain classes of property, with
these features usually designed to benefit homeowners.

The “classification ratio” describes these preferences by comparing the effective tax rate for two
types of property. For example, if a city has a 3.0% effective tax rate on commercial properties
and a 1.5% effective tax rate on homestead properties, then the commercial-homestead
classification ratio is 2.0 (3.0% divided by 1.5%). An increase in the classification ratio will be
associated with a decrease in the tax rate on homestead properties, because it means that
homeowners are collectively bearing a smaller share of the property tax burden while businesses
and/or renters pay more. For example, Figure 1 shows that a 1 percent increase in the
commercial-homestead classification ratio is associated with a 0.40 percent decrease in the
effective tax rate on a median valued home, and a 1 percent increase in the apartment-homestead
classification ratio is associated with a 0.49 percent decrease.

New York City has the highest classification ratio for apartment buildings relative to
homesteads, and the fifth highest commercial-homestead classification ratio. This means that
commercial buildings and apartments are taxed at a dramatically higher percentage of market
value than owner-occupied residences. In New York, a $1 million commercial property faces an
effective tax rate that is 3.3 times higher than a median valued home, while a $600,000
apartment building has an effective tax rate that is 4.8 times higher. As a result, among the
largest cities in each state, New York City has the 4th lowest tax rate on a median valued home,
but the highest tax rate on apartments and the 2nd highest rate on commercial properties.13 In
New York, homeowners are heavily subsidized at the expense of renters and businesses.14

The New York City example shows the other side of the classification equation: favoring
homeowners by definition means higher property taxes on businesses and apartment buildings.
Regression analysis shows that a 1 percent increase in the commercial-homestead classification
ratio is associated with a 0.49 percent increase in the commercial property tax rate, and a 1
percent increase in the apartment-homestead classification ratio is associated with a 0.41 percent
increase in the apartment tax rate.15

Note that while renters do not pay property tax bills directly, they do pay property taxes
indirectly since landlords are able to pass through some of their property taxes by increasing
rents.16 Since renters have lower incomes than homeowners on average, preferences given to
homesteads relative to apartment buildings will tend to make the property tax system more
regressive.

13
Appendix tables 2b, 5a, and 3a.
14
Josh Barro. 2013. “If You Live in New York and You Rent, You're Paying A Huge Tax You Don't Even Know
About.” Business Insider. June 28.
15
Results for commercial properties are shown in Appendix Table 1d. The analysis with effective tax rates on
apartments as the dependent variable uses the same set of explanatory variables; each variable has the same level of
statistical significance as in Appendix table 1d and the R-square is very similar (0.667).
16
Bowman, John H., Daphne A. Kenyon, Adam Langley, and Bethany P. Paquin. 2009. “Property Tax Circuit
Breakers: Fair and Cost-Effective Relief for Taxpayers.” Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Pg. 32.

12
Other Factors
The four key factors described above explain nearly three-quarters of the variation in cities’
effective tax rates on median valued homes, and are thus the most important causes of
differences in tax rates across cities. However, there are other factors that also play a role. For
example, two variables that could affect property tax rates are the level of state and federal aid
and local governments’ share of total state and local government spending in each state.
However, the impact of these variables will depend on how exactly the state government
structures aid or takes on service responsibilities otherwise provided by local governments.

It is reasonable to expect that higher state aid will allow local governments to reduce their
reliance on property taxes and thus lead to lower property tax rates. But in fact, research shows
that the impact of state aid on local property taxes is ambiguous, and depends on how state aid is
structured. Some state aid formulas can limit local spending, in which case state aid is likely to
reduce property taxes. However, other aid formulas like matching grants can encourage higher
local spending, and thus state aid may not reduce property taxes in those cases.17

Similarly, if the state government bears a larger share of state and local government
expenditures, it makes sense that local government spending and the need for property taxes
might decline. That would be the case if the state assumes responsibility for public services that
would otherwise be provided by local governments, such as in Hawaii where there is a single
statewide school district and thus no local expenditures on K-12 education. But it is also possible
that state expenditures are higher because the state government spends more on traditional state
responsibilities, like higher education or public welfare, in which case higher state spending
would not lead to lower local government expenditures.

The regression analysis used for this section considered these two other variables, but they were
not found to be related with effective tax rates at a statistically significant level. This finding is
not surprising since the expected impact of these variables depends on institutional details that
are not captured by a single measure of state aid or state expenditures.

17
Kenyon, Daphne A. 2007. The Property Tax-School Funding Dilemma. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of
Land Policy. Page 50.

13
Homestead Property Taxes
Figure 2 shows property taxes on a median valued home for the largest city in each state. The
analysis looks at homesteads, which are owner-occupied primary residences. The average
effective tax rate on median-valued homesteads for the 53 cities in Figure 2 is 1.495 percent. At
that rate, a home worth $200,000 would owe $2,990 in property taxes (1.495% x $200,000).

Tax rates vary widely across the 53 cities. The three cities at the top of the chart – Bridgeport
(CT), Aurora (IL), and Detroit – have effective tax rates that are roughly 2.5 times higher than
the average for the 53 cities. In six other cities, the effective property tax rate on a median valued
home is 1.5 to about 2 times the average. Conversely, the bottom seven cities – Honolulu,
Charleston (SC), Boston, Cheyenne (WY), Denver, Birmingham (AL), and Washington (DC) –
all have effective tax rates that are less than half of the study average.

Overall, the average effective tax rate for all cities fell slightly between 2016 and 2017, from
1.497 percent of value to 1.495 percent. The effective tax rate on the median-valued homestead
climbed in 24 cities, fell in 27, and remained unchanged in 1 city. 18 The largest increase was in
Sioux Falls (SD), where the effective rate rose by 11%, due to changes in assessment quality that
eliminated underassessment of homes relative to market values, with a corresponding increase in
rank from 23rd to 20th highest. Other cities where effective tax rates climbed by at least 5 percent
include: Burlington (VT), Chicago, Billings (MT), Fargo (ND), Phoenix, Portland (OR), and
Denver (listed from largest increase to the smallest).

Effective rates on median-valued homesteads fell the farthest in Boston, which had a 15.9
percent decline, from 0.612 percent of value to 0.515 percent. Other cities with declines of at
least 5 percent include: Charlotte (NC), Louisville (KY), Portland (ME), and Detroit (listed from
largest decrease to the smallest).

Note that in addition to effective tax rates, Figure 2 also reports the tax bill on a median valued
home for each city. Because of significant variations in home values across these cities, some
cities with modest tax rates can still have high tax bills on a median valued home relative to
other cities, and vice versa. For example, Louisville and Los Angeles have similar tax rates on a
median valued home, but because the median valued home is worth so much more in Los
Angeles ($594k vs. $151k), the tax bill is far higher in Los Angeles (3rd highest) than in
Louisville (43rd highest). In general, cities with high home values can raise considerable property
tax revenue from a median valued home despite modest tax rates, whereas cities with low home
values may have fairly low tax bills even with high tax rates.

The table on the next page shows cities with the largest differences in their ranking in terms of
effective tax rates versus tax bills on a median valued home. Note that most of this report uses
fixed home values (i.e., $300k home in all cities) to estimate effective tax rates, which forces the
ordering of cities in terms of tax rates to match the order for tax bills.

18
Note: This totals 52 cities: since the South Carolina city is not consistent between this report and the payable 2016
report, measuring changes between the two years would provide misleading information.

14
 Cities with Largest Differences in Ranking on Effective Tax Rate vs. Tax Bill,
for a Median Valued Home (2017)
High Home Values Low Home Values
Cities with high tax bills despite low tax rates Cities with low tax bills despite high tax rates
City Tax Rate Tax Bill City Tax Rate Tax Bill
Washington (DC) 47 12 Detroit (MI) 3 46
Seattle (WA) 43 9 Buffalo (NY) 13 45
Los Angeles (CA) 31 3 Jackson (MS) 19 49
Boston (MA) 51 26 Memphis (TN) 15 42
New York (NY) 30 6 Wichita (KS) 28 48

Appendix Table 2b is similar to Table 2a except that it accounts for the effect of assessment
limits, which restrict growth in the assessed value of individual parcels for property tax purposes.
These limits reduce estimates of homestead property taxes for 11 of the 53 cities, with the largest
impacts on New York City, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Overall, accounting for assessment
limits reduces the average property tax bill for the 53 cities by 7 percent. For more details on the
impact of assessment limits, see that section of this report.

Appendix Table 2c shows how effective tax rates on homestead properties vary based on their
value, showing tax rates for properties worth $150,000 and $300,000 for the largest city in each
state. As the table notes, effective tax rates vary with property value about half of the time (27 of
53 cities). Usually, effective tax rates rise with homestead value because of homestead
exemptions and property tax credits that are set to a fixed dollar amount. Under these programs,
the percentage reduction in property taxes falls as home values rise. For example, a $20,000
exemption provides a 20 percent tax cut on a $100,000 home, a 10 percent cut on a $200,000
home, and a 5 percent cut on a $400,000 home.19 However, other design elements can create the
same effect. For example, Minnesota uses a tiered assessment system, where 1% of a home’s
market value is taxable up through $500,000 of value, while 1.5% of value above that is taxable.

Value-driven differences in effective tax rates make the biggest difference in Boston, which in
2016 offered a homestead exemption equal to the lesser of $229,737 or 90 percent of a
property’s market value. This results in an ultra-low effective tax rate of 0.101% on a $150,000
home, which is roughly half of the effective rate on a $300,000 home (0.195%). The other two
cities with the largest differentials in the effective rates between a $150,000-valued home and a
$300,000-valued home also offer substantial homestead exemptions: Honolulu ($80,000
exemption) and Atlanta (which effectively exempts $75,000 of market value).

Other cities where effective tax rates are considerably lower on a $150,000 home than a
$300,000 home due to fixed dollar credits, exemptions, or other policies, include:
 Philadelphia – seven place difference (35th highest for $150k, 28th highest for $300k)
 New Orleans – six place difference (43rd highest for $150k, 37th highest for $300k)
 Jacksonville – four place difference (26th highest for $150k, 22nd highest for $300k)

19
For information on homestead exemptions in each state, see “How Do States Spell Relief: A National Study of
Homestead Exemptions and Property Tax Credits” by Adam H. Langley in Land Lines (April 2015).

15
Readers should use some caution when interpreting the results in Appendix Tables 2c, 2f, and
2h; see the box on comparing property taxes calculated with fixed property values (page 22).

Appendix Tables 2d through 2f show effective tax rates on homestead properties for a different
set of cities. Whereas Tables 2a through 2c focus on the largest city for each state, Tables 2d
through 2f show the 50 largest cities in the country regardless of their state. There is considerable
overlap between the two groups of cities, but some significant differences as well. In this set of
tables, California has eight cities, Texas has seven, Arizona has three, and five states have two
cities each (CO, FL, NC, OK, and TN). There are 21 states without any cities in the top 50. As
with the tables for the largest city in each state, there are two sets of tables for median-valued
homes; one before and one after accounting for the effects of assessment limitations (Tables 2d
and 2e respectively).

The average effective tax rates for homesteads are generally about 4 to 5 percent lower for the 50
largest cities than for the largest city in each state. The exception is when comparing median-
valued homes after accounting for assessment limitations. For those cities, the discrepancy is
bigger (a 10.2% difference), largely because the share of top 50 cities with assessment limits in
effect is much larger than the share on a nationwide basis.

Effective tax rates can be rather homogenous across large cities in a single state. For example,
consider the effective rates on median-valued homes in the two largest states shown in Table 2d:
 In the eight California cities, the highest effective tax rate is Oakland (20th highest) and
the lowest is Sacramento (36th). However, California accounts for six of the 11 cities
ranked between 26th and 36th, with effective tax rates clustering in the 1.1 to 1.2 percent
range due to the effect of California’s Proposition 13 limitations on tax rates.
 In the seven Texas cities, the highest effective tax rate is El Paso (2nd highest) and the
lowest is Houston (14th), with Texas accounting for five of the eight cities ranked
between 2nd and 9th. It is more difficult to point to a single feature of Texas’ property tax
system to explain this clustering. However, it likely reflects the fact that local
governments in these six Texas cities have relatively high reliance on property taxes and
that Texas has a uniform property tax system that does not allow for different tax rates or
assessment ratios on different types of property.

However, in other cases there can be considerable differences in effective tax rates between
cities within the same state. For example, Table 2d shows some noticeable differences in
effective tax rates and rankings for median-valued homes between these sets of same-state cities:
 In Tennessee: Memphis has the 13th highest tax rate (1.845%), while Nashville has the
46th highest (0.996%) – a 33 place differential.
 In Arizona: Phoenix has the 24th highest tax rate (1.257%) and Tucson has the 25th
highest tax rate (1.230%), while Mesa has the 44th highest (0.853%) – a 20 place
differential between the neighboring cities of Phoenix and Mesa.

Appendix Tables 2g and 2h provide additional information about how effective property tax
rates vary across states by looking at a rural community in each state. The rural analysis includes
county seats with populations between 2,500 and 10,000 located in nonmetropolitan counties.

16
The average effective tax rate on median-valued homes in the 50 rural communities in this report
is 1.340% for taxes paid in 2017. As with large cities, the rates for rural municipalities vary
considerably around that average. In three municipalities – Warsaw (NY), Ridgway (PA), and
Lancaster (NH) – the effective tax rates on median-valued homes are at least 2 times the average.
In contrast, nine municipalities feature effective tax rates of less than half of the average, with
the lowest rates in Kauai (HI), Pocahontas (AR), Natchitoches (LA), Monroeville (AL), and
Elkins (WV).

Comparing Tables 2a and 2g shows that effective tax rates on median-valued homesteads are
around 10 percent lower in rural municipalities than in large cities on average. There are two
major reasons why rates are lower in rural communities: lower nominal tax rates and homestead
exemptions that apply to a fixed amount of value across the state and therefore exempt higher
proportions of homestead value from taxation in rural areas, where home values are generally
much lower than in large cities.

In 31 states, the effective tax rate on the median-valued home is higher in the largest city20 than
in the rural municipality. Arkansas has the biggest difference; the 1.112% rate in Little Rock is
3.7 times the 0.236% rate in Pocahontas. In four other states the tax rate in the largest city is at
least two times higher than in the rural community: Delaware, Louisiana, Oregon, and Tennessee
(listed alphabetically).

On the other hand, in 19 states the effective tax rate on median-valued homes is higher in the
rural municipality than in the largest city in the state. The biggest difference is in Massachusetts,
where the effective tax rate in Adams is over 4 times higher than the rate in Boston (2.12% vs.
0.51%), largely because of Boston’s unique (within Massachusetts) homestead exemption. Other
states where the tax rate in the rural community is at least 1.5 times higher than the largest city
are Kansas, New York, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina (listed alphabetically).

Some readers may want to use findings on effective tax rates from one specific table to reach
conclusions on property taxes throughout an entire state. The small differences in tax rates across
cities in California and Texas (Appendix Tables 2d-2f) show that the largest city in each state
can serve as a proxy for property tax rates throughout an entire state. However, the large
differences between the two largest cities in Tennessee and Arizona show that caution is needed
when extrapolating findings for a single city to an entire state.

Readers wishing to determine whether taxes in a state are high, low, or somewhere in between
are best served by comparing the rankings for urban and rural municipalities. For example, in
five states (Illinois21, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Vermont, and Wisconsin) the effective tax
rate on the median-valued home is among the ten highest in both a rural and an urban setting –
suggesting that these states are most likely to have the highest homestead property taxes.
Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, West Virginia, and Wyoming are the five states where effective tax
rates on median-valued homes are among the ten lowest in both urban and rural settings –
suggesting that these states are most likely to have the lowest homestead property taxes.

20
When averaging Chicago and Aurora, IL; and Buffalo and New York City, NY.
21
Aurora only.

17
 Figure 2: Property Taxes on Median Valued Home for Largest City in Each State (2017)
(Rate Rank, Bill Rank) 0 1,401
Effective Tax 2,802
Rate 4,203
Tax Bill 5,604 7,005
CT: Bridgeport ( 1, 5) 3.81%
IL: Aurora ( 2, 7) 3.76%
MI: Detroit ( 3, 46) 3.63%
NJ: Newark ( 4, 2) 3.16%
WI: Milwaukee ( 5, 18) 2.57%
OR: Portland ( 6, 1) 2.42%
VT: Burlington ( 7, 4) 2.37%
IA: Des Moines ( 8, 20) 2.26%
NH: Manchester ( 9, 10) 2.26%
MD: Baltimore (10, 14) 2.07%
OH: Columbus (11, 22) 2.01%
NE: Omaha (12, 17) 2.01%
NY: Buffalo (13, 45) 1.93%
ME: Portland (14, 8) 1.89%
TN: Memphis (15, 42) 1.85%
TX: Houston (16, 19) 1.79%
RI: Providence (17, 16) 1.69%
IL: Chicago (18, 13) 1.64%
MS: Jackson (19, 49) 1.56%
SD: Sioux Falls (20, 23) 1.55%
MO: Kansas City (21, 31) 1.51%
DE: Wilmington (22, 33) 1.46%
MN: Minneapolis (23, 15) 1.35%
AK: Anchorage (24, 11) 1.34%
NM: Albuquerque (25, 28) 1.27%
FL: Jacksonville (26, 38) 1.26%
AZ: Phoenix (27, 24) 1.26%
KS: Wichita (28, 48) 1.19%
KY: Louisville (29, 43) 1.18%
NY: New York City (30, 6) 1.18%
CA: Los Angeles (31, 3) 1.18%
OK: Oklahoma City (32, 39) 1.17%
NV: Las Vegas (33, 25) 1.14%
AR: Little Rock (34, 41) 1.11%
PA: Philadelphia (35, 44) 1.10%
GA: Atlanta (36, 21) 1.08%
ND: Fargo (37, 35) 1.06%
NC: Charlotte (38, 34) 1.04%
IN: Indianapolis (39, 51) 1.03%
LA: New Orleans (40, 32) 1.00%
MT: Billings (41, 36) 0.95%
VA: Virginia Beach (42, 27) 0.90%
WA: Seattle (43, 9) 0.84%
ID: Boise (44, 40) 0.83%
UT: Salt Lake City (45, 30) 0.79%
WV: Charleston (46, 52) 0.76%
DC: Washington (47, 12) 0.72%
AL: Birmingham (48, 53) 0.67%
CO: Denver (49, 29) 0.66%
WY: Cheyenne (50, 50) 0.65%
MA: Boston (51, 26) 0.51%
SC: Charleston (52, 47) 0.50%
HI: Honolulu (53, 37) 0.31%

0.00% 0.5x
0.75% 1x
1.50% 1.5x
2.24% 2x
2.99% 2.5x
3.74% 4.49%
(≈ $1,550) (≈ $3,100) (≈ $4,650) (≈ $6,200) (≈ $7,750)
Tax Relative to U.S. Average

18
Commercial Property Taxes
Figure 3 shows effective property tax rates for commercial properties worth $1 million dollars
for the largest city in each state. This analysis looks specifically at taxes on office buildings,
hotels, and other commercial properties without inventory on site. Tax rates for other types of
commercial property will often be similar, but will vary in cities where personal property is taxed
differently than real property. The analysis assumes each property has an additional $200,000
worth of fixtures, which includes items such as office furniture, equipment, display racks, and
tools. Different types of commercial property will have different proportions of real and personal
property. Therefore, effective tax rates will change between different types of commercial
property in cities where personal property is taxed differently from real property.22

The average effective tax rate on commercial properties for the 53 cities in Figure 3 is 2.055
percent. A property worth $1 million with $200,000 in fixtures would thus owe $24,654 in
property taxes (2.055% x $1.2m).

Tax rates vary widely across the 53 cities. The top six cities of Detroit, New York City,
Bridgeport (CT), Chicago, Providence, and Aurora (IL) all have effective tax rates that are at
least two-thirds higher than the average for these cities. The bottom five cities of Fargo, Virginia
Beach, Honolulu, Seattle, and Cheyenne (WY) all have tax rates that are less than half of the
average.

A few of the cities had significant changes in their effective tax rates from 2016 to 2017. The
city with the largest decline in its tax rates was Indianapolis, where a lower nominal tax rate led
the effective tax rate on a $1-million valued commercial property to decline by 13.7%, from
2.85% to 2.46%, with the city’s ranking falling 5 places from 11th to 16th. The other city with a
significant drop in its tax rate rankings was Salt Lake City, UT (from 35th to 40th). 23

Columbus, OH had the largest increase in effective tax rates on commercial properties from 2016
to 2017. A property tax reappraisal sharply reduced the underassessment of commercial property,
and was the main driver in increasing the city’s effective tax rate on a commercial property
worth $1 million by almost 25%, from 1.75% to 2.15%, so that Columbus’ ranking rose from
30th to 23rd. From a rankings perspective, Baltimore’s rank rose five places (from 16th to 11th),
and the ranking for three cities (Jackson, MS; Portland, ME; and Sioux Falls, SD), climbed by
four places.

Appendix Table 3a shows how effective tax rates on commercial properties vary based on their
value, showing tax rates for properties worth $100,000, $1 million, and $25 million (all have
fixtures worth 20% of the real property value). Effective tax rates for commercial properties
22
For an analysis that looks at how effective tax rates vary between different types of commercial property, see “The
Effects of State Personal Property Taxation on Effective Tax Rates for Commercial Property” by Aaron Twait,
published by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (April 2018). The paper finds that average effective tax rates for
payable 2016 exceeded 1.9% for hospitals, restaurants, and office space while wholesale trade facilities encountered
rates roughly half as large. The paper also finds the current study assumptions realistically model the property taxes
payable on the most common type of commercial property – office property.
23
The ranking for the city representing South Carolina fell precipitously, but since the largest city in the state
changed from Columbia to Charleston year to year changes are not meaningful.

19
generally do not vary based on property values, unlike homestead properties, where exemptions
or other tax relief programs often create significantly lower rates on lower valued properties.

Only 11 of the 53 cities have effective tax rates that vary based on their value. Value-driven
differences in effective tax rates make the biggest difference in rankings in Philadelphia.
Philadelphia has among the lowest tax rates for commercial properties worth $100,000 (1.143%,
44th highest), but is just slightly above average for commercial properties worth $25 million
(2.125%, 24th highest). The city offers property owners a credit against the first $2,000 of
Business Use and Occupancy Tax (effectively, a property tax imposed only on business
properties) assessed against individual properties, and this credit creates this large differential.
The credit reduces the tax on a $100,000-valued property by 46%, but by only 0.3% for a
property worth $25 million.

Other cities where the rankings vary significantly (by at least ten places between the $100,000-
valued and $25 million-valued parcels) because of beneficial tax treatment provided to lower-
valued properties through credits, exemptions, or preferential assessment practices include:
 Des Moines (20th highest for $100k, 7th highest for $25m)
 Minneapolis (21st highest for $100k, 8th highest for $25m)
 Washington, DC (39th highest for $100k, 28th highest for $25m)

Appendix Table 3b shows effective tax rates on commercial properties for a different set of
cities. Whereas Table 3a has the largest city for each state, Table 3b shows the 50 largest cities in
the country regardless of their state. There is considerable overlap between the two groups of
cities, but some significant differences as well. In Table 3b, California has eight cities, Texas has
seven cities, Arizona has three cities, and six states (CO, FL, NC, OK, and TN) have two cities
each. There are 21 states without any cities in the top 50 shown in Table 3b. Appendix Table 3b
also shows effective tax rates on commercial properties worth $100,000, $1 million, and $25
million (with fixtures worth 20% of the real property value).

The average effective tax rates for commercial properties is slightly lower for the 50 largest
cities shown in Table 3b than the cities shown in Table 3a—about 3 percent lower for the three
property values analyzed.

In some states, tax rates do not vary too much across the largest cities. For example, consider tax
rates for commercial properties worth $1 million in the two largest states:
 For California’s eight cities, the highest tax rate is in Oakland (34th highest) and the
lowest is in Sacramento (46th). California accounts for 6 of the 8 cities ranked between
39th and 46th.
 For Texas’s seven cities, the highest tax rate is in El Paso (4th highest) and the lowest is in
Austin (21st). Texas accounts for four of the seven cities ranked between 11th and 17th.

However, in other cases there can be considerable differences in effective tax rates between
cities within the same state. There are actually larger differences in tax rates for states with just
two or three cities:
 In Arizona: Phoenix has the 20th highest tax rate, while neighboring Mesa as the 30th
highest.

20
  In Tennessee: Memphis has the 6th highest tax rate, while Nashville has the 41st highest.
 In Colorado: Denver has the 19th highest tax rate, while Colorado Springs has the 29th
highest.

Appendix Table 3c provides additional information about how effective property tax rates vary
across states by looking at a rural community in each state. The rural analysis includes county
seats with populations between 2,500 and 10,000 that are located in nonmetropolitan counties.

On average, commercial tax rates are about 15 percent lower for the 50 rural communities than
the largest cities in each state. For a property worth $1 million, the average effective tax rate is
1.75% for the rural cities versus 2.05% for the urban cities shown in Appendix Table 3a. For 30
states, the effective tax rate on a $1-million valued commercial property is lower in the selected
rural municipality than in the state’s largest city.

The state with the biggest difference in the tax rate in the largest city and the rural municipality is
Tennessee, where the tax rate on a commercial property worth $1 million in Savannah (TN) is
about a third of the rate in Memphis (1.00% vs. 2.83%). Other states where the tax rate in the
rural community is significantly lower than the largest city include Delaware (59% lower),
Connecticut (58% lower), Oregon (52% lower), and Arkansas (48% lower).

On the other hand, in 20 states the tax rate is higher in the rural municipality than in the largest
city in the state. The biggest difference is in South Carolina, where the tax rate on a commercial
property worth $1 million in Mullins is 59 percent higher than the rate in Charleston (2.82% vs.
1.77%). Other states where the tax rate in the rural municipality is significantly higher than the
largest city include Kansas (48% higher), Washington (42% higher), Montana (42% higher), and
Florida (31% higher).

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

Some readers may want to use findings on effective tax rates from one specific table to reach
conclusions on property taxes throughout an entire state. The small differences in tax rates across
cities in California and Texas (Appendix Table 3b) show that the largest city in each state can
serve as a proxy for property tax rates throughout an entire state. However, the large differences
between the largest cities in Tennessee, Arizona, and Colorado show that caution is needed when
extrapolating findings for a single city to an entire state.

Readers wishing to determine whether taxes in a state are high, low, or somewhere in between
are best served by comparing the rankings for urban and rural municipalities. For example, four
states (Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and New York) have multiple top ten rankings in both an
urban and rural setting – suggesting that these states are most likely to have the highest
commercial property taxes. Conversely, four states (Delaware, Hawaii, Virginia, and Wyoming)
have multiple bottom ten rankings in both urban and rural settings.

21
Comparing Property Taxes Calculated with Fixed Property Values
This report uses fixed property values (i.e. $1 million in all cities) to control for the impact
local real estate conditions have on relative tax burdens. However, differences in property
values – driven largely by differences in land values – mean identically valued properties often
look very different across the country. For example, a $1 million property in Detroit is very
different from a $1 million parcel in New York City. For two properties with different values
but identical characteristics (i.e. similar square footage, amenities, etc.) in two cities with the
same effective tax rates, the property tax bill will be higher in dollar terms in the city with high
property values than the city with low values.

For taxes on commercial, industrial, and apartment properties, the report solely uses fixed
property values. As a result, if the goal is to compare taxes due on properties with similar
characteristics (i.e. 5000 square feet in the central business district), the net tax bills (i.e.
$3,000) will be underestimated in cities with high property values and overestimated in cities
with low property values. In contrast, data on effective tax rates (i.e. 1.5 percent) will be
largely unaffected by the property value chosen for the analysis, because effective tax rates
usually do not increase with property values for business properties. For this reason, it is better
to use data on effective tax rates when making cross-city comparisons for taxes on
commercial, industrial, and apartment properties.

In addition, fixed property values are not problematic from the perspective of a real estate
investor looking to invest a certain amount of money—whether it’s a $1 million condo in New
York or a $1 million apartment complex in Detroit.

Note that the use of fixed property values also makes year-to-year comparisons of effective tax
rates or tax bills challenging because property values change over time. A $1 million property
in 1995 looks very different than a $1 million property in 2016 in most cities.

For homestead property taxes, the report analyzes property taxes on median valued homes,
which adjusts for differences in property values, and thus allows for comparisons of property
taxes on a “typical” home across cities and over time.

22
 Figure 3: Commercial Property Taxes for Largest City in Each State (2017)
Effective Tax Rate for $1-Million Valued Property (plus $200k in Fixtures)

MI: Detroit (1) 4.24%

NY: New York City (2) 3.90%
CT: Bridgeport (3) 3.81%
IL: Chicago (4) 3.78%
RI: Providence (5) 3.68%
IL: Aurora (6) 3.43%
IA: Des Moines (7) 3.00%
MN: Minneapolis (8) 2.85%
MS: Jackson (9) 2.84%
TN: Memphis (10) 2.83%
MD: Baltimore (11) 2.78%
MO: Kansas City (12) 2.77%
WI: Milwaukee (13) 2.75%
KS: Wichita (14) 2.68%
NJ: Newark (15) 2.64%
IN: Indianapolis (16) 2.46%
OR: Portland (17) 2.42%
TX: Houston (18) 2.36%
NY: Buffalo (19) 2.35%
VT: Burlington (20) 2.35%
CO: Denver (21) 2.31%
AZ: Phoenix (22) 2.20%
OH: Columbus (23) 2.15%
NE: Omaha (24) 2.07%
ME: Portland (25) 2.06%
LA: New Orleans (26) 2.05%
PA: Philadelphia (27) 1.97%
NH: Manchester (28) 1.88%
MA: Boston (29) 1.82%
SC: Charleston (30) 1.77%
FL: Jacksonville (31) 1.68%
WV: Charleston (32) 1.61%
GA: Atlanta (33) 1.59%
NM: Albuquerque (34) 1.49%
SD: Sioux Falls (35) 1.45%
AL: Birmingham (36) 1.45%
AK: Anchorage (37) 1.44%
ID: Boise (38) 1.42%
AR: Little Rock (39) 1.40%
UT: Salt Lake City (40) 1.39%
OK: Oklahoma City (41) 1.30%
DC: Washington (42) 1.30%
KY: Louisville (43) 1.26%
CA: Los Angeles (44) 1.19%
NV: Las Vegas (45) 1.14%
MT: Billings (46) 1.14%
NC: Charlotte (47) 1.08%
DE: Wilmington (48) 1.07%
ND: Fargo (49) 0.96%
VA: Virginia Beach (50) 0.96%
HI: Honolulu (51) 0.91%
WA: Seattle (52) 0.85%
WY: Cheyenne (53) 0.61%
0.5x 1x 1.5x 2x
Tax Relative to U.S. Average

23
Industrial Property Taxes
Figure 4 shows effective property tax rates for industrial properties with $1 million worth of real
property for the largest city in each state. This analysis looks specifically at taxes on
manufacturing properties. We assume that each property has an additional $1 million of personal
property, consisting of $500,000 of machinery and equipment, $400,000 of inventories, and
$100,000 of fixtures. Differences in personal property taxation have significant impacts on
effective tax rates for industrial properties, as described in the box on the next page. Readers
should use some caution when interpreting these results; see the box on comparing property
taxes calculated with fixed property values for guidance (page 22).

The average effective tax rate on industrial properties for the 53 cities in Figure 4 is 1.499
percent. A parcel with a real property value of $1 million that has an additional $1 million in
personal property would thus owe $29,984 in property taxes (1.499% x $2m total parcel value).
For shorthand, this section refers to parcels based on their real property values.

Tax rates vary widely across the 53 cities. The top four cities of Jackson (MS), Detroit,
Memphis, and Houston all have effective tax rates that are at least 60% higher than the average
for these cities. The bottom seven cities of Virginia Beach, Fargo, Honolulu, Wilmington (DE),
Cheyenne, Seattle, and Louisville all have tax rates that are less than half of the average.

Some cities had significant changes in their effective tax rates from 2016 to 2017. Similarly to
commercial properties, the city with the largest decline in its industrial property tax rates was
Indianapolis, where a lower nominal tax rate dropped the effective tax rate by nearly 15%, from
2.31% to 2.00%, so that the city’s ranking dropped from 7th to 12th. Other cities with significant
ranking declines include Salt Lake City, which fell four places from 36th highest to 40th in the
rankings; Boston, which fell from 38th highest to 41st; and Buffalo, which fell from 25th highest
to 28th.

Chicago had the largest increase in effective tax rates on industrial properties from 2016 to 2017.
A reduction in the underassessment of industrial properties and a higher nominal tax rate
increased the effective tax rate on an industrial property in the city worth $1 million by 18%,
from 1.92% to 2.27%, so that the city’s ranking rose from 14th to 7th. Four other cities
experienced ranking three-place increase in their ranking: Anchorage (AK) rose from 27th
highest to 24th; Birmingham (AL) rose from 40th highest to 37th; Manchester (NH) rose from 41st
highest to 38th; and Oklahoma City rose from 30th highest to 27th.

Appendix Table 4a shows how effective tax rates on industrial properties vary based on their
value, showing tax rates for properties worth $100,000, $1 million, and $25 million (all have
personal property worth 100% of the real property value). As the table notes, effective tax rates
for industrial properties generally do not vary based on property values, unlike homestead
properties, where exemptions or other tax relief programs often create significantly lower rates
on lower valued properties.

24
 Taxes on Personal Property
Property taxes are often imposed differently on real property (the value of land and buildings)
versus personal property (the value of machinery and equipment, inventories, and fixtures).
For example, Appendix Table 4g shows how three categories of personal property are taxed in
the largest cities in each state:
 Machinery and equipment, which includes things like assembly robots and milling
machines, is fully exempt from taxation in 21 cities. In another 10 cities, the property
tax system provides preferential treatment to machinery and equipment over real
property. In contrast, real property is treated preferentially relative to personal property
in at least once instance in five cities.
 Manufacturers’ inventories, which include raw materials, supplies, unfinished
products, and similar items, are fully exempt from taxation in 43 cities. In another 4
cities, inventories receive preferential treatment relative to real property, while the
reverse is true in 2 cities.
 Fixtures, which include office furniture, equipment, display racks, and tools, are fully
exempt from taxation in 15 cities. In another 8 cities, the property tax system provides
preferential treatment to fixtures relative to real property, while fixtures are taxed more
heavily than real property in at least one instance in 10 cities.

Because personal property is often taxed at a lower rate than real property, the effective tax
rate on business properties usually depends on the share of a parcel’s total value (i.e. real
property + personal property) that comes from personal property. That means estimates of
effective tax rates depend on assumptions about the split of total parcel value between real and
personal property.

However, the split between real and personal property varies by industry and location. Our
modeling indicates that personal property’s share of total parcel value ranges from a low of
33.0% for apparel manufacturers to a high of 68.0% for motor vehicle manufacturers. After
applying state-specific weights for each manufacturing type, the median state has 54% of total
industrial parcel value in personal property with the minimum amount being 50%
(Massachusetts) and the maximum being 59% (Michigan).24

Because estimates of effective tax rates are sensitive to assumptions about personal property’s
share of total parcel value, we present two sets of estimates for industrial properties: personal
property accounts for 50% of total parcel value in one set of estimates and 60% in the other
set. The first set will be a better reflection of effective tax rates for industries and states where
personal property accounts for a smaller share of total parcel value (like apparel manufacturers
and Massachusetts), while the second set will be better when personal property accounts for a
larger share of total parcel value (like motor vehicle manufacturers and Michigan).

Only 12 of the 53 cities have effective tax rates that vary based on their value. Value-driven
differences in effective tax rates make the biggest difference in rankings in Washington, D.C.
The District of Columbia has one of the lowest tax rates for industrial properties worth $100,000

24
To determine personal property’s share of total parcel value, we replicate the methodology used by the Minnesota
Department of Revenue’s Research Division in their biennial Tax Incidence Study. These studies are available on
their website: http://www.revenue.state.mn.us/research_stats/Pages/Tax_Incidence_Studies.aspx.

25
(0.780%, 43rd highest), but is above average for industrial properties worth $25 million (1.867%,
17th highest). The city exempts the first $225,000 of business personal property, which is
effectively a complete personal property exemption for the $100,000-valued parcel but only
exempts 0.9% of the personal property associated with the $25 million-valued parcel. The
exemption reduces the total tax on a $100,000-valued property by nearly 60% but by less than
1% for a property worth $25 million.

Other cities where the rankings vary significantly because of beneficial tax treatment provided to
lower-valued properties through credits, exemptions, or preferential assessment practices
include:
 Phoenix (31st highest for $100k, 8th highest for $25m)
 Billings (MT) (50th highest for $100k, 35th highest for $25m)
 Des Moines (30th highest for $100k, 16th highest for $25m)
 Philadelphia (47th highest for $100k, 34th highest for $25m)

Appendix Table 4c shows effective tax rates on industrial properties for a different set of cities.
Whereas Table 4a has the largest city for each state, Table 4c shows the 50 largest cities in the
country regardless of their state. There is considerable overlap between the two groups of cities,
but some significant differences as well. In Table 4c, California has eight cities, Texas has seven
cities, Arizona has three cities, and five states (CO, FL, NC, OK, and TN) have two cities each.
There are 21 states without any cities in the top 50 shown in Table 4c. Appendix Table 4c also
shows effective tax rates on industrial properties worth $100,000, $1 million, and $25 million
(again with personal property equal to 100% of the real property value).

The average effective tax rate for industrial properties is higher for the 50 largest cities shown in
Table 4c than the cities shown in Table 4a—roughly 6-7 percent higher, regardless of which of
the three property values is analyzed.

In some states, tax rates do not vary too much across the largest cities. For example, consider tax
rates for industrial properties worth $1 million in the two largest states:
 For California’s eight cities, the highest tax rate is in Oakland (37th highest) and the
lowest is in Sacramento (45th). California accounts for 8 of the 9 cities ranked between
37th and 45th.
 For Texas’s seven cities, the highest tax rate is in El Paso (highest among the 50) and the
lowest is in Austin (11th). Texas accounts for the four of the top five cities and six of the
top eight.

However, in other cases there can be considerable differences in effective tax rates between
cities within the same state. Consider these noticeable differences in ranking (with the associated
effective tax rates) for the $1 million-valued industrial properties in states with two or three cities
among the nation’s largest fifty:
 In Tennessee: Memphis has the 7th highest tax rate (2.583%), while Nashville has the 34th
highest (1.104%).
 In Colorado: Denver has the 18th highest tax rate (1.860%), while Colorado Springs has
the 31st highest (1.316%).

26
  In Arizona: Phoenix has the 16th highest tax rate (1.953%), while neighboring Mesa has
the 26th highest (1.417%).

Appendix Table 4e provides additional information about how effective property tax rates vary
across states by looking at a rural community in each state. The rural analysis includes county
seats with populations between 2,500 and 10,000 that are located in nonmetropolitan counties.

On average, industrial tax rates are about 13 to 14 percent lower for the 50 rural communities
than the largest cities in each state. For a property worth $1 million, the average effective tax rate
is 1.297% for the rural cities versus 1.499% for the urban cities shown in Appendix Table 4a. For
28 states, the effective tax rate on a $1-million valued industrial property is lower in the selected
rural municipality than in the state’s largest city.

The state with the biggest difference in the tax rate in the largest city and the rural municipality is
Tennessee, where the tax rate on an industrial property worth $1 million in Savannah (TN) is
about a third of the rate in Memphis (0.94% vs. 2.58%). Other states where the tax rate in the
rural municipality is significantly lower than the largest city include Connecticut (59% lower),
Delaware (48% lower), Oregon (52% lower), and Arkansas (48% lower).

On the other hand, in 22 states the tax rate is higher in the rural municipality than in the largest
city in the state. The biggest difference is in South Carolina, where the tax rate on an industrial
property worth $1 million in Mullins is 61 percent higher than the rate in Charleston (3.67% vs.
2.28%). Other states where the tax rate in the rural municipality is significantly higher than the
largest city include Virginia (53% higher), Kansas (47% higher), Washington (42% higher), and
Montana (35% higher).

Variation in industrial tax rates across the 50 rural cities is very similar to variation across the
largest cities in each state.

Some readers may want to use findings on effective tax rates from one specific table to reach
conclusions on property taxes throughout an entire state. The small differences in tax rates across
cities in California and Texas (Appendix Table 4c) show that the largest city in each state can
serve as a proxy for property tax rates throughout an entire state. However, the large differences
between the two or three largest cities in Tennessee, Arizona, and Colorado show that caution is
needed when extrapolating findings for a single city to an entire state.

Readers wishing to determine whether taxes in a state are high, low, or somewhere in between
are best served by comparing the rankings for urban and rural municipalities. For example, six
states (Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, and Texas) have multiple top
ten rankings in both an urban and rural setting under both sets of assumptions – suggesting that
these states are most likely to have the highest industrial property taxes. Delaware, Hawaii,
Kentucky, North Dakota, South Dakota, Virginia, and Wyoming are the seven states that most
often have bottom ten rankings in both urban and rural settings.

27
 Figure 4: Industrial Property Taxes for Largest City in Each State (2017)
Effective Tax Rate for $1-Million Valued Property (plus $1 Million in Personal Property)

MS: Jackson (1) 2.84%

MI: Detroit (2) 2.73%
TN: Memphis (3) 2.58%
TX: Houston (4) 2.53%
NY: New York City (5) 2.34%
SC: Charleston (6) 2.28%
IL: Chicago (7) 2.27%
MO: Kansas City (8) 2.19%
LA: New Orleans (9) 2.10%
CT: Bridgeport (10) 2.09%
IL: Aurora (11) 2.06%
IN: Indianapolis (12) 2.00%
AZ: Phoenix (13) 1.95%
OR: Portland (14) 1.94%
RI: Providence (15) 1.93%
CO: Denver (16) 1.86%
MN: Minneapolis (17) 1.79%
IA: Des Moines (18) 1.73%
NE: Omaha (19) 1.69%
WV: Charleston (20) 1.63%
VT: Burlington (21) 1.60%
NJ: Newark (22) 1.58%
WI: Milwaukee (23) 1.51%
AK: Anchorage (24) 1.49%
GA: Atlanta (25) 1.47%
KS: Wichita (26) 1.46%
DC: Washington (27) 1.42%
NY: Buffalo (28) 1.41%
OK: Oklahoma City (29) 1.40%
AR: Little Rock (30) 1.40%
MD: Baltimore (31) 1.39%
FL: Jacksonville (32) 1.36%
OH: Columbus (33) 1.30%
NM: Albuquerque (34) 1.21%
PA: Philadelphia (35) 1.18%
ID: Boise (36) 1.17%
AL: Birmingham (37) 1.16%
NH: Manchester (38) 1.13%
ME: Portland (39) 1.13%
UT: Salt Lake City (40) 1.12%
MA: Boston (41) 1.10%
CA: Los Angeles (42) 0.95%
NV: Las Vegas (43) 0.91%
NC: Charlotte (44) 0.91%
MT: Billings (45) 0.89%
SD: Sioux Falls (46) 0.87%
KY: Louisville (47) 0.71%
WA: Seattle (48) 0.69%
WY: Cheyenne (49) 0.66%
DE: Wilmington (50) 0.64%
HI: Honolulu (51) 0.60%
ND: Fargo (52) 0.57%
VA: Virginia Beach (53) 0.49%
0.5x 1x 1.5x 2x
Tax Relative to U.S. Average

28
Apartment Property Taxes
Figure 5 shows effective property tax rates for apartment buildings worth $600,000 for the
largest city in each state. The analysis assumes each property has an additional $30,000 worth of
fixtures, which includes items such as stoves, refrigerators, garbage disposals, air conditioners,
drapes, and lawn care equipment. Readers should use some caution when interpreting these
results; see the box on comparing property taxes calculated with fixed property values for
guidance (page 22).

The average effective tax rate on apartment properties for the 53 cities in Figure 5 is 1.834
percent. A property worth $600,000 with $30,000 in personal property would thus owe $11,554
in property taxes (1.834% x $630,000 total parcel value).

Tax rates vary widely across the 53 cities. The top two cities of New York City and Detroit have
effective tax rates that are 2.5 to 3 times higher than the average for these cities. The next three
cities (Aurora, IL; Bridgeport, CT; and Des Moines, IA) have effective tax rates that are roughly
double the average for these cities. Conversely, there are eight cities where tax rates on
apartments are less than half the average, with the lowest rates in Honolulu, Cheyenne, Salt Lake
City, Denver, and Washington (DC).

Some cities had significant changes in their effective tax rates from 2016 to 2017. The cities
where property tax rates on apartment properties declined by at least 7% were Des Moines (IA)
and Louisville. A phased-in reduction in the assessment ratio of apartment properties – part of a
larger property tax reform effort – substantially influenced the effective tax rate reduction for
apartments in Des Moines; while growing underassessment of apartment properties drove the
decline in Louisville. However, these changes had no effect on Des Moines’ ranking (which
remains at 5th highest) and resulted in only a two-place decline in Louisville’s rank, from 41st
highest to 43rd. In fact, when excluding South Carolina because of the change in cities, no city
fell more than two places in rank from 2016.

The effective tax rate on apartments increased by 23% between 2016 and 2017 in Columbus
(OH) as property tax reappraisal sharply reduced the underassessment of apartment properties,
driving the city’s ranking up 7 places, from 19th to 12th. Five other cities had notable increases in
the effective tax rankings for apartments: Charleston (WV) rose from 25th to 21st, Phoenix rose
from 37th to 34th, Jackson (MS) rose from 11th to 8th, Las Vegas rose from 44th to 41st, and Sioux
Falls (SD) rose from 26th to 23rd.

Appendix Table 5b shows effective tax rates on apartment properties for a different set of cities.
Whereas Table 5a has the largest city for each state, Table 5b shows the 50 largest cities in the
country regardless of their state. There is considerable overlap between the two groups of cities,
but some significant differences as well. In Table 5b, California has eight cities, Texas has seven
cities, Arizona has three cities, and five states (CO, FL, NC, OK, and TN) have two cities each.
There are 21 states without any cities in the top 50 shown in Table 5b.

The average effective tax rates for apartment properties is about 6 percent lower for the 50
largest cities shown in Table 5b than the cities shown in Table 5a. In some states, tax rates do not

29
vary too much across the largest cities. For example, consider tax rates for apartment properties
worth $600,000 in the two largest states:
 For California’s eight cities, the highest tax rate is in Oakland (24th highest) and the
lowest is in Sacramento (39th highest). There is a clustering effect as California accounts
for 6 of the 8 cities ranked between 32nd and 39th.
 For Texas’s seven cities, the highest tax rate is in Fort Worth (3rd highest) and the lowest
is in Austin (13th). Texas accounts for five of the seven cities ranked between 3rd and 9th.

However, in some states there are considerable differences in effective tax rates between
different cities. Consider these notable differences in rankings and effective tax rates between the
cities in these states:
 In Tennessee: Memphis has the 4th highest tax rate (2.917%), while Nashville has the 33rd
highest (1.247%).
 In Oklahoma: Tulsa has the 21st highest tax rate (1.501%), while Oklahoma City has the
31st highest (1.262%).
 In Arizona: Phoenix and Tucson have the 25th and 27th highest rates (1.343% and
1.325%, respectively), while Mesa has the 44th highest (0.960%).

Appendix Table 5c provides additional information about how effective property tax rates vary
across states by looking at a rural community in each state. The rural analysis includes county
seats with populations between 2,500 and 10,000 that are located in nonmetropolitan counties.

On average, apartment tax rates are about 15 percent lower for the 50 rural communities than the
largest cities in each state. For the $600,000-valued apartment property, the average effective tax
rate is 1.623% for the rural cities versus 1.834% for the large cities shown in Appendix Table 5a.
For 28 states, the effective tax rate on a $600,000-valued apartment property is lower in the
selected rural municipality than in the state’s largest city.

The state where the tax rate in the largest city is the lowest vis-à-vis the rate for the rural
municipality is Tennessee, where the tax rate on a $600,000-valued apartment property in
Savannah is about a third of the rate in Memphis (1.03% vs. 2.92%). Other states where the tax
rate in the rural municipality is significantly lower than the largest city include Delaware (57%
lower), Oregon (52% lower), Arkansas (49% lower) and Connecticut (47% lower).

On the other hand, in 22 states the tax rate is higher in the rural municipality than in the largest
city in the state. The biggest difference is in Pennsylvania, where the tax rate on an apartment
property worth $600,000 in Ridgway is nearly 120 percent higher than the rate in Philadelphia
(2.85% vs. 1.31%). Other states where the tax rate in the rural municipality is significantly
higher than in the largest city include Massachusetts (110% higher), Hawaii (77% higher),
Kansas (70% higher), and South Carolina (59% higher).

Variation in apartment tax rates across the 50 rural municipalities is very similar to variation
across the largest cities in each state.

Some readers may want to use findings on effective tax rates from one specific table to reach
conclusions on property taxes throughout an entire state. The small differences in tax rates across

30
cities in California and Texas (Appendix Table 5b) show that the largest city in each state can
serve as a proxy for property tax rates throughout an entire state. However, the large differences
between the largest cities in Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Arizona show that caution is needed
when extrapolating findings for a single city to an entire state.

Readers wishing to determine whether taxes in a state are high, low, or somewhere in between
are best served by comparing the rankings for urban and rural municipalities. For example, six
states (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin) have top ten rankings in
both an urban and rural setting – suggesting that these states are most likely to have the highest
apartment property taxes. Colorado, Hawaii, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming are the five states that
have bottom ten rankings in both urban and rural settings.

31
 Figure 5: Apartment Property Taxes for Largest City in Each State (2017)
Effective Tax Rate for $600,000 Valued Property (plus $30,000 of Fixtures)

NY: New York City (1) 5.40%

MI: Detroit (2) 4.55%
IL: Aurora (3) 3.92%
CT: Bridgeport (4) 3.81%
IA: Des Moines (5) 3.34%
NJ: Newark (6) 3.01%
TN: Memphis (7) 2.92%
MS: Jackson (8) 2.84%
WI: Milwaukee (9) 2.75%
NY: Buffalo (10) 2.69%
VT: Burlington (11) 2.52%
OH: Columbus (12) 2.46%
OR: Portland (13) 2.42%
MD: Baltimore (14) 2.38%
TX: Houston (15) 2.35%
NH: Manchester (16) 2.15%
ME: Portland (17) 2.04%
NE: Omaha (18) 2.03%
RI: Providence (19) 1.88%
IN: Indianapolis (20) 1.84%
WV: Charleston (21) 1.71%
MN: Minneapolis (22) 1.69%
SD: Sioux Falls (23) 1.66%
FL: Jacksonville (24) 1.65%
SC: Charleston (25) 1.62%
GA: Atlanta (26) 1.57%
LA: New Orleans (27) 1.49%
ID: Boise (28) 1.47%
AL: Birmingham (29) 1.45%
MO: Kansas City (30) 1.44%
AR: Little Rock (31) 1.40%
AK: Anchorage (32) 1.40%
DE: Wilmington (33) 1.39%
AZ: Phoenix (34) 1.34%
NM: Albuquerque (35) 1.33%
PA: Philadelphia (36) 1.31%
KS: Wichita (37) 1.31%
OK: Oklahoma City (38) 1.26%
IL: Chicago (39) 1.24%
CA: Los Angeles (40) 1.19%
NV: Las Vegas (41) 1.10%
ND: Fargo (42) 1.10%
KY: Louisville (43) 1.08%
NC: Charlotte (44) 1.05%
MA: Boston (45) 0.96%
MT: Billings (46) 0.90%
WA: Seattle (47) 0.84%
VA: Virginia Beach (48) 0.83%
DC: Washington (49) 0.77%
CO: Denver (50) 0.76%
UT: Salt Lake City (51) 0.72%
WY: Cheyenne (52) 0.60%
HI: Honolulu (53) 0.33%
0.5x 1x 1.5x 2x 2.5x 3x
Tax Relative to U.S. Average

32
Classification and Preferential Treatment of Homestead Properties
Many cities have preferences built into their property tax systems that result in lower effective
tax rates for certain classes of property, with these features usually designed to benefit
homeowners. The “classification ratio” describes these preferences by comparing the effective
tax rate for two types of property. For example, if a city has a 3.0% effective tax rate on
commercial properties and a 1.5% effective tax rate on homestead properties, then the
commercial-homestead classification ratio is 2.0 (3.0% divided by 1.5%).

In a property tax system that treats all properties similarly, the classification ratio would be 1.0,
because the effective rates on all properties would be the same. Therefore, the classification ratio
provides a summary measure of the degree to which one type of property subsidizes lower
property taxes on another class of properties. There are four main features of property tax
systems that lead to different effective tax rates for different classes of property: the assessment
ratio, the nominal tax rate, exemptions and credits, and the sales ratio.25

First, states may have different assessment ratios for different classes of property, which is the
percentage of market value used to determine taxable values. For example, a state may have a
100% assessment ratio for commercial property and a 70% assessment ratio for residential
property, which means a $100,000 commercial property would be taxed on its full market value
but a $100,000 residential property would be taxed as if it were worth $70,000.

Second, cities may have different nominal tax rates for different classes of property, which is the
tax rate applied to the taxable value to determine the tax bill. The nominal tax rate is also known
as the statutory tax rate or millage rate.

Third, states or cities may have exemptions or credits that are only available to certain types of
properties. The most common are homestead exemptions, which reduce the amount of property
value subject to taxation, but are usually restricted to owner-occupied homes and unavailable to
businesses or renters. For example, a $50,000 homestead exemption would mean a $200,000
home would be taxed as if it were worth $150,000, assuming there is a 100% assessment ratio.26

Fourth, the sales ratio may vary across property classes. The sales ratio measures the accuracy of
assessments by comparing assessments to actual sales. For example, if the sales ratio for
homesteads is 95%, then a home worth $100,000 would be “on the books” as if it were worth
$95,000. Unlike the three other causes of classification, differences in sales ratios across classes
are not written into law and are normally unintentional. Nonetheless, differences in the quality of
assessments across property classes can produce a de facto classification system.

25
For details on classification in each state, see the Property Tax Classification table on the Lincoln Institute of
Land Policy’s Significant Features of the Property Tax website (https://www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/significant-
features-property-tax/Report_Property_Tax_Classification.aspx).
26
For information on homestead exemptions in each state, see “How Do States Spell Relief: A National Study of
Homestead Exemptions and Property Tax Credits” by Adam H. Langley in Land Lines (April 2015).

33
Commercial-Homestead Classification Ratio
Figure 6a shows the commercial-homestead classification ratio for the largest city in each state,
by comparing the effective tax rate on a $1 million commercial property to the effective tax rate
on a median-value homestead property. Note that because homeowners’ household goods are not
taxable, we exclude commercial fixtures and instead compare only the effective rates on real
property (land and buildings).

The average classification ratio for the 53 cities shown in Figure 6a is 1.640, which means that
on average commercial properties experience an effective tax rate that is 64% higher than
homesteads.

The commercial-homestead classification ratio varies widely across the 53 cities. The top four
cities of New York City, Boston, Honolulu, and Denver all have classification ratios equal to or
greater than 3.5. Just over a quarter of the cities (14 of 53) have classification ratios above 2.0,
meaning that commercial properties face an effective tax rate that is at least double that for
homesteads.

There are five cities where the classification ratio is below one, meaning that their classification
system favors commercial properties over homesteads: Las Vegas, Louisville, Virginia Beach,
Cheyenne (WY), and Wilmington (DE). The property tax systems in these cities are not
structured to favor commercial properties, but the sales ratio results in a de facto classification
system since commercial properties are under-assessed relative to homestead properties.

Appendix Table 6a provides additional information about the commercial-homestead

classification ratio in each city. Of the 53 cities, 16 have a higher assessment ratio for
commercial properties, 14 have a higher nominal tax rate on commercial properties, and 30 have
exemptions or credits that favor homesteads over commercial properties. Property tax systems
often combine these features – in 19 of these cities homeowners benefit from at least two of
these three features (in Minneapolis, homeowners benefit from all three). In 13 cities preferential
treatment for homeowners is delivered through exemptions or credits alone, while in 8 cities
preferences are delivered exclusively through differences in assessment ratios or nominal tax
rates.

On average, tax disparities between commercial and homestead properties fell slightly in 2017—
declining to 1.640 from 1.672 in 2016. The commercial-homestead classification ratio declined
in 29 cities27, with the largest drops in Chicago (-0.349); Indianapolis (-0.245); Phoenix (-0.202);
Virginia Beach (-0.143); and Fargo (-0.138). Relative changes in sales ratios for commercial
versus homestead properties tend to have the biggest impact on short-term changes in
classification ratios. However, policy decisions that change the underlying property tax structure
can sometimes come into play – for example, policymakers’ decision in North Dakota to end the
state-paid 12% credit against homestead taxes plays a large role in Fargo’s lower classification
ratio. From a rankings perspective, Virginia Beach (KY) fell 13 places, from 38th to 51st highest,
and Cheyenne (WY) fell 10 places (from 42nd to 52nd highest).

27
Excluding South Carolina, where the city change renders comparisons between this report and the last misleading.

34
The classification ratio increased in 15 cities, with the largest rises in Boston (0.469); Columbus,
OH (0.259); Detroit (0.105); and Baltimore (0.066). Here, the decline is largely driven again by
sales ratio changes, although the large increase in Boston’s homestead exemption results in a
much higher classification ratio for that city.

Figure 6c shows the longer-term picture, with trends in the commercial-homestead classification
ratio going back to 1998. The 1.640 figure for 2017 is the lowest we have measured, about 2%
lower than the 1.678 from last year’s report and the 1.680 in 2002. There was a roughly
equivalent drop, on a proportional basis, from 2016 to 2017 when looking solely at locations
where residential and commercial properties are treated differently in statute. For cities with
“statutory classification,”28 the average dropped from 1.889 to 1.854.

Apartment-Homestead Classification Ratio

Figure 6b shows the apartment-homestead classification ratio for the largest city in each state,
by comparing the effective tax rate on a $600,000 apartment building to the effective tax rate on
a median-value homestead. This classification ratio shows the degree of subsidy provided to
homeowners at the expense of renters. The apartment-homestead classification ratio shows that
apartments subsidize homestead property taxes at about half the rate that commercial properties
do, with apartments facing an effective tax rate that is 33% higher than homesteads on average.
In nearly all locations studied, the apartment-homestead classification ratio is smaller than or
equal to the commercial-homestead classification ratio, with the exceptions of (in alphabetical
order): Burlington (VT), Charleston (WV), Cheyenne (WY), Detroit, Houston, New York City,
and Wilmington (DE).

New York City is a major outlier in the apartment-homestead classification ratio, with an
effective tax rate on apartments that is nearly five times higher than the median valued home.
There are four other cities with classification ratios above 2.0: Charleston (SC), Indianapolis,
Charleston (WV), and Birmingham. On the other hand, there are six cities with a classification
ratio below 1.0, with the lowest ratios in Chicago, Virginia Beach, and Cheyenne. The
preference given to apartments in these cities is not the result of statutory provisions, but is
simply the result of greater underassessment for apartments relative to homesteads.

Appendix Table 6b provides more details about the apartment-homestead classification ratio in
each city. As with commercial properties, a large majority of cities have higher effective tax
rates on apartments than homesteads. However, the preferences given to homesteads relative to
apartments are caused more by homestead exemptions and credits than by differences in
assessment ratios or nominal tax rates. In total, 36 of the 53 cities have statutory preferences for
homesteads relative to apartments, but only 10 offer more than one preference. Five cities have
preferential assessment ratios and/or nominal tax rates only, while 20 cities offer homestead
exemptions or credits alone.

On average, tax disparities between apartments and homesteads fell about 1-2% in 2017—
declining to 1.332 from 1.351 in 2016. The apartment-homestead classification ratio declined in

28
To identify cities with statutory classification, we ignore the sales ratio. This group only includes cities where
classification is written into law with the assessment ratio, nominal tax rate, or exemptions/credits.

35
28 cities29, with the largest drops in Indianapolis (-0.245); New York City (-0.175); Fargo, ND
(-0.138); Sioux Falls, SD (-0.123); and Burlington, VT (-0.116). The classification ratio
increased in 11 cities, with the largest rises in Columbus, OH (0.259); Boston (0.246); Baltimore
(0.066); Denver (0.044); and Portland, ME (0.019). As with the commercial-homestead ratios,
relative changes in sales ratio have the biggest impact in year-to-year changes in the apartment-
homestead ratios. However, policymakers’ decisions influenced some changes in the apartment-
homestead classification ratios; in Fargo, the same factors affecting changes in the commercial-
homestead classification ratio come into play. Figure 6d provides information on how the
apartment-homestead classification ratio has changed since 1998.

29
Again excluding South Carolina because of the change in cities.

36
Figure 6a: Commercial-Homestead Classification Ratio for Largest City in Each State (2017)
MA: Boston (1) 4.237
NY: New York City (2) 3.968
HI: Honolulu (3) 3.561
CO: Denver (4) 3.499
SC: Charleston (5) 3.101
IL: Chicago (6) 2.766
IN: Indianapolis (7) 2.353
KS: Wichita (8) 2.205
AL: Birmingham (9) 2.180
DC: Washington (10) 2.168
PA: Philadelphia (11) 2.141
WV: Charleston (12) 2.109
LA: New Orleans (13) 2.037
AZ: Phoenix (14) 1.996
RI: Providence (15) 1.952
MN: Minneapolis (16) 1.937
ID: Boise (17) 1.863
MO: Kansas City (18) 1.847
MS: Jackson (19) 1.827
UT: Salt Lake City (20) 1.753
Average for Cities 1.640
TN: Memphis (21) 1.600
IA: Des Moines (22) 1.590
NY: Buffalo (23) 1.463
GA: Atlanta (24) 1.437
FL: Jacksonville (25) 1.363
MT: Billings (26) 1.329
TX: Houston (27) 1.287
OH: Columbus (28) 1.284
AR: Little Rock (29) 1.259
MI: Detroit (30) 1.193
NM: Albuquerque (31) 1.162
SD: Sioux Falls (32) 1.126
VT: Burlington (33) 1.106
IL: Aurora (34) 1.096
ND: Fargo (35) 1.087
ME: Portland (36) 1.077
AK: Anchorage (37) 1.073
WI: Milwaukee (38) 1.071
MD: Baltimore (39) 1.070
OK: Oklahoma City (40) 1.063
NE: Omaha (41) 1.022
CA: Los Angeles (42) 1.012
NH: Manchester (43) 1.000
WA: Seattle (44) 1.000
OR: Portland (45) 1.000
NC: Charlotte (46) 1.000
NJ: Newark (47) 1.000
CT: Bridgeport (48) 1.000
NV: Las Vegas (49) 0.997
KY: Louisville (50) 0.959
VA: Virginia Beach (51) 0.922
WY: Cheyenne (52) 0.916
DE: Wilmington (53) 0.879
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

37
Figure 6b: Apartment-Homestead Classification Ratio for Largest City in Each State (2017)
NY: New York City (1) 4.800
SC: Charleston (2) 3.101
IN: Indianapolis (3) 2.353
WV: Charleston (4) 2.255
AL: Birmingham (5) 2.180
MA: Boston (6) 1.954
ID: Boise (7) 1.863
MS: Jackson (8) 1.827
TN: Memphis (9) 1.600
IA: Des Moines (10) 1.549
NY: Buffalo (11) 1.463
LA: New Orleans (12) 1.461
GA: Atlanta (13) 1.437
FL: Jacksonville (14) 1.363
Average for Cities 1.332
MN: Minneapolis (15) 1.310
TX: Houston (16) 1.303
OH: Columbus (17) 1.284
AR: Little Rock (18) 1.259
MI: Detroit (19) 1.257
PA: Philadelphia (20) 1.245
SD: Sioux Falls (21) 1.126
AZ: Phoenix (22) 1.122
HI: Honolulu (23) 1.118
DC: Washington (24) 1.117
VT: Burlington (25) 1.115
IL: Aurora (26) 1.096
ND: Fargo (27) 1.087
ME: Portland (28) 1.077
AK: Anchorage (29) 1.073
MD: Baltimore (30) 1.070
WI: Milwaukee (31) 1.069
OK: Oklahoma City (32) 1.061
CO: Denver (33) 1.038
NM: Albuquerque (34) 1.034
KS: Wichita (35) 1.025
NE: Omaha (36) 1.022
CA: Los Angeles (37) 1.012
MO: Kansas City (38) 1.000
DE: Wilmington (39) 1.000
WA: Seattle (40) 1.000
RI: Providence (41) 1.000
OR: Portland (42) 1.000
NJ: Newark (43) 1.000
NH: Manchester (44) 1.000
MT: Billings (45) 1.000
CT: Bridgeport (46) 1.000
NC: Charlotte (47) 1.000
NV: Las Vegas (48) 0.966
UT: Salt Lake City (49) 0.964
KY: Louisville (50) 0.959
WY: Cheyenne (51) 0.920
VA: Virginia Beach (52) 0.875
IL: Chicago (53) 0.795
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

38
Figure 6c: Commercial-Homestead Classification Ratio for Largest City in Each State (1998 – 2017)
2.5 All Location Average
Locations with Statutory Classification

2.07 2.04 2.05

Commercial/Home Ratio

1.99 2.00 1.97

1.94 1.96 1.94 1.95 1.95 1.92
2.0 1.90 1.91 1.89
1.88 1.85

1.77 1.79 1.75 1.79

1.76 1.72
1.68 1.71 1.71 1.73 1.72 1.71 1.72 1.71 1.68
1.67 1.64
1.5

1.0
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
Payable Year
Note: 1.0 denotes unclassified property tax system.
Note: “Statutory classification” is the group of cities where classification is written into law with the assessment ratio,
nominal tax rate, or exemptions/credits. Identification of this group ignores the sales ratio.

Figure 6d: Apartment-Homestead Classification Ratio for Largest City in Each State (1998 – 2017)
2.0 All Location Average
Locations with Statutory Classification

1.78
1.70
Commercial/Home Ratio

1.68 1.66 1.68

1.63 1.64 1.63
1.59 1.61
1.58 1.58 1.56
1.54 1.55 1.56
1.51
1.5
1.49
1.46 1.45
1.43 1.44
1.41 1.42 1.42
1.36 1.38 1.40 1.39 1.38 1.38
1.34 1.35 1.33

1.0
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
Payable Year
Note: 1.0 denotes unclassified property tax system.

39
Property Tax Assessment Limits
Property tax limitations have become an increasingly important feature of the local government
finance landscape since the late 1970s, when rapid property value growth provoked Californians
to adopt the now-iconic Proposition 13. Since that time, limitations on property taxes have
become increasingly popular, especially during the late 1990s and early 2000s, when property
values again appreciated significantly.30

There are many different types of property tax limits, including constraints on tax rates, tax
levies, and assessed values.31 This report accounts for the impact of limits on tax rates and levies
implicitly, because of how these laws impact cities’ tax rates. However, accounting for the
impact of assessment limits requires an explicit modeling strategy.

Assessment limits typically restrict growth in the assessed value for individual parcels and then
reset the taxable value of properties when they are sold. Therefore, the level of tax savings
provided from assessment limits largely depends on two factors: how long a homeowner has
owned her home and appreciation of the home’s market value relative to the allowable growth of
its assessed value.32

This report estimates the amount of tax relief provided by assessment limits for the average
homeowner in a particular city by estimating the amount of value growth these limits exclude
from taxation over an average tenure of ownership (See Methodology section for details).33 One
key difference between assessment limits and other types of property tax limits, however, is that
tax savings from assessment limits vary widely across individual taxpayers within the same city.
Tax savings will be greater than average for homeowners whose home values have grown faster
than average for the city and have owned their homes longer than average. States with parcel-
specific assessment limits include Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois (Cook County
only), Michigan, New Mexico, New York (New York City and Nassau County only), Oklahoma,
Oregon, South Carolina, and Texas.

Figure 7 shows the impact of assessment limits for a median valued home in the 29 cities
modeled. The impact of assessment limits varies widely across cities. The largest effect is in
New York City, which has an assessment limit that has capped growth in assessed values for
residential properties since 1981, even when a property is sold. Because most homes in New
York were built prior to 1981, the average home in New York City has been subject to
assessment limits for 36 years. However, effective tax rates on newly built homes are far higher,

30
Paquin, Bethany P. 2015. “Chronicle of the 161-Year History of State-Imposed Property Tax Limitations.”
Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
31
The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy maintains a comprehensive database of property tax limits on its website:
https://www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/significant-features-property-tax/Report_Tax_Limits.aspx.
32
Haveman, Mark and Terri A. Sexton. 2008. Property Tax Assessment Limits: Lessons from Thirty Years of
Experience. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
33
Unlike most locales, assessment limits effective in New York City and Portland (OR) do not reset upon sale of a
property. Therefore, for those two cities the duration of the assessment limitation is set to the lesser of the average
age of an owner-occupied home (i.e. number of years since average home was constructed, which is 65 years in
New York City and 64 years in Portland) or the period during which assessment limits have been in place (since
1981 in New York City and 1996 in Portland).

40
because they do not benefit from the assessment limit. In fact, the owner of a median valued
home in New York City ($569,700) built prior to 1981 would face less than half the effective tax
rate than the owner of a newly built median valued home despite them having identical values.
Assessment limits also have large impacts in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Oakland, Miami, and
Sacramento, where effective tax rates are 40-45% lower for homes that have been owned for the
average duration in each city than for newly purchased homes. In contrast, in four cities
assessment limits have no impact on taxes for the average homeowner, because growth in market
values is less than allowable growth under the assessment limit.

Appendix Table 7 also shows the impact of assessment limits in terms of the dollar difference in
taxes between newly purchased homes and homes subject to the average assessment limitation in
each city, for median valued homes. In 9 cities, the difference in tax bills is at least $1,000.

Accounting for assessment limits can lead to major differences in city’s tax rate rankings. For
example, consider effective tax rates for median valued homes in the largest city in each state
(See Appendix Tables 2a and 2b). New York City has the 30th highest effective tax rate for new
homeowners, but drops to 50th highest once adjusting for assessment limits. Other cities with
large changes include Los Angeles (31st to 47th); Jacksonville (26th to 41st); Portland, OR (6th to
17th); and Phoenix (27th to 36th).

41
 Figure 7: Impact of Assessment Limits
Difference in Property Taxes between a Newly Purchased Home and a Home that Has Been
Owned for the Average Duration for the City (For Median Valued Home)
New York City (NY)* 53.8%
San Francisco (CA) 44.5%
Los Angeles (CA) 43.7%
Oakland (CA) 43.4%
Miami (FL) 43.4%
Sacramento (CA) 41.2%
Long Beach (CA) 38.1%
San Jose (CA) 37.0%
Jacksonville (FL) 34.1%
Portland (OR)* 32.1%
Fresno (CA) 31.3%
San Diego (CA) 27.6%
Detroit (MI) 24.4%
Phoenix (AZ) 18.8%
Mesa (AZ) 15.8%
Charleston (SC) 13.2%
Chicago (IL) 6.1%
Little Rock (AR) 4.5%
Oklahoma City (OK) 3.4%
Tulsa (OK) 2.2%
Albuquerque (NM) 1.7%
Tucson (AZ) 0.9%
Dallas (TX) 0.5%
Arlington (TX) 0.5%
Fort Worth (TX) 0.5%
Austin (TX) 0.0%
El Paso (TX) 0.0%
Houston (TX) 0.0%
San Antonio (TX) 0.0%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%
Notes: See Methodology section for details on calculation.
*New York City and Portland (OR) have unique assessment limits, because they do not reset when a property
is sold like in other cities (See footnote 33 on page 40 for details on the methodology for these two cities).

42
Methodology
This study updates the 50-State Property Tax Comparison Study: Payable Year 2016. It examines
four distinct classes of property using a standard set of assumptions about their “true” market
values and the split between real and personal property. The report calculates property taxes for
parcels with a range of property values in three sets of cities:
 the largest city in each state and the District of Columbia along with Aurora, Illinois and
Buffalo, New York;
 the largest fifty cities in the United States; and
 a rural municipality in each state.

This section first describes how property taxes are calculated, then describes data collection and
the selection of cities, next defines the four property classes included in this study, and finally
describes the methodology used to estimate the impact of assessment limits.

A. Components of the Property Tax Calculation

As an aid in reviewing the remaining assumptions of this study, it is helpful to think of the property
tax calculation as having six distinct components:
(1) a “true” market value (TMV),
(2) a local sales ratio (SR),
(3) applicable exemptions that reduce taxable value (E),
(4) a statutory classification system (classification rate) or other provisions that effectively
determine the proportion of the assessor’s estimated market value that is taxable (CR),
(5) the total local property tax rate (TR), and
(6) applicable property tax credits (C).

Accordingly, the net local property tax for a given parcel of property is written:

Net Property Tax = {[(TMV x SR) – E] x CR x TR} – C

Component 1: True Market Value (TMV)

The calculations for this study start with an assumption about the true market value of the four
classes of property. This is the market value of a parcel of property as determined in a local real
estate market consisting of arm-length transactions between willing buyers and sellers. This is in
contrast to “assessed value” or “estimated market value,” which is generally the starting point for
tax calculations.

This study assumes the true market values are consistent across all locations in the study. For
example, the ranking of property taxes on a residential homestead parcel with a true market value
of $150,000 assumes that the parcel is actually worth $150,000 in the local real estate market in
each location in each state, regardless of what the local assessor may think the property is worth.

43
For some locations the assumed true market value may be very atypical (a $150,000 home in
Boston, for example). Nevertheless, this study assumes the property exists there. Essentially, this
study is meant to compare the effects of property tax structures. Using fixed values allows the
isolated effects of tax structures to be observed. That is, the report compares property taxes, not
local real estate markets. However, as previously discussed the report does include tables that show
the residential tax burdens where the home value is set equal to local median values.

Component 2: Sales Ratios (SR)

A unique aspect of this study is that it includes the effects of assessment practices on relative tax
burdens. It would be much simpler to start the calculations by fixing the assessor’s “estimated
market value” for each property. However, in every state, the quality of property tax assessments
is a significant aspect of the local property tax scene. Omission of this aspect of the property tax
calculation would make this study much less useful.

Sales ratios are simply a measure of the accuracy of assessments. The sales ratio is determined by
comparing assessments to actual sales. A sales ratio of 100% indicates that assessments are equal
to market value. Sales ratios of less than 100% indicate that assessments are less than market value;
sales ratios of over 100% indicate that assessments are higher than market value. In some states,
state aid formulas use sales ratios to adjust assessors’ values when local property wealth is used as
a measure of local fiscal capacity. While sales ratios are generally not used in calculating an
individual’s actual property tax bill, some states do use sales data to equalize values as part of the
property tax process.

By applying sales ratios, this study recognizes that our $150,000 residential homestead may be
“on the books” at $155,000 in one location, and $140,000 in another, and that the actual tax on the
property will be based on these “estimates” of market value. For example, if the relevant sales ratio
in a given location is 93%, we convert the $150,000 true market value to $139,500 ($150,000 x
.93) before applying the provisions of the local property tax. In this way, the study presents tax
liabilities that represent the actual experience of property owners.

Sales ratio data is provided either at the city or county level, depending on the state. We use city-
level data where appropriate; otherwise we default to county data. Our preference is to use sales
ratio data that differentiates between different types of property. However, in many locations only
one ratio is reported, covering all types of property. In those cases, we apply the same ratio to all
of that location’s examples in the study.

In the case of personal property, sales ratios are generally not used. Many states do not have sales
ratios for personal property or assume they are 100%. Where states report personal property sales
ratios, we include them in this study.

Component 3: Exemptions (E)

Many states provide exemptions that reduce the amount of property value subject to taxation. In
some cases these exemptions are provided on a blanket basis across a state; in other cases the
exemptions are local-option. Because exemptions are subtracted from assessed value, we apply

44
them after first applying the sales ratio to true market value, since the exemption will not
incorporate any of the assessment error that properties can be subject to.

Note: in some cases the exemption is subtracted from taxable value instead of assessed value. In
those cases we apply the exemption after applying the classification rate.

Component 4: Classification Rates (CR)

The fourth component of the property tax calculation involves subjecting the parcel’s taxable value
to classification (or assessment) rates, which convert assessed value to taxable value. In many
cases, these classification rates are 100%, meaning that taxable value is equal to assessed value.
However, governments often use differential rates to affect the distribution of property tax levies
– to provide tax relief for a selected class of classes of properties at the expense of others.

In most states, state legislatures set the classification schemes. In a few states, local governments
have some autonomy over classification rates.

Because of the wide variation in the quality of assessments across the states, particularly across
classes of property, many states have no classification scheme in statute may in fact have
significant classification via uneven assessments across classes of property. (In some cases, this
may violate state constitutional provisions on uniform assessments.) Some states, like Minnesota,
enforce strict standards of assessment quality (sales ratio studies, state orders adjusting values,
state certification of assessors, etc.) and put their classification policy in statute.

Component 5: Total Local Tax Rate (TR)

The study defines “payable 2017 tax rate” as the rate used to calculate the property taxes with a
lien date in 2017, regardless of the date(s) on which payments are due. In some cities, there are
multiple combinations of taxing jurisdictions (namely, the state, cities, counties, school districts,
and special taxing districts). For instance, a city may be located in multiple school districts and
therefore rates will differ based on which school district a parcel is located in. This study uses the
rate that is most prevalent in a city.

This study excludes special assessments since they are more in the nature of user charges, do not
affect a majority of parcels, and are usually not sources of general revenue.

Component 6: Credits (C)

The final step in the tax calculation is to recognize any general deductions from the gross property
tax calculations (credits). The study includes any credits that apply to a majority of parcels of the
specified type. Certain states provide credits based on early payment; the study assumes that
taxpayers take advantage of the credit by making the early payment.

Effective Tax Rates (ETRs)

Effective tax rates are used to express the relationship between net property taxes and the true
market value of a property. This contrasts with the millage rates or other rates that are applied to

45
taxable value to determine a parcel’s tax burden. By including the effects of all statutory tax
provisions as well as the effects of local assessment practices, effective tax rates have the virtue of
allowing more meaningful comparisons across states and property types.

B. Data Collection

Data for the property tax calculations was collected in one of two ways. Where possible, we collect
property tax data directly from various state and local websites. Otherwise, we collect data using
a contact-verification approach in which we ask state and local tax experts to provide information.
In both cases, this information served as the basis for calculations by the Minnesota Center for
Fiscal Excellence.

Selection of Additional Urban Cities

In Cook County (Chicago) and in New York City, the property tax system (notably, the assessment
ratios) is substantially different from the system used in the remainder of Illinois and New York,
respectively. We include the second-largest cities in those states (Buffalo and Aurora) to represent
the property tax structures in the remainder of those states. In essence, the Urban analysis is a
comparison of 53 different property tax structures.

Selection of Rural Cities

Rural cities generally must meet three criteria to be included in the study:
 the city has a population of between 2,500 and 10,000 (controlling for size);
 the city is a county seat (controlling, as best as possible, for economic conditions and type
of services delivered); and
 the city is located in a county coded as a “6” or “7”34 on the U.S. Department rural-urban
measurement continuum (controlling for geographical relationships to urban areas)

In five states (Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, New Jersey, and Rhode Island), there were no
counties coded 6 or 7 on the USDA’s continuum. In the case of Massachusetts, the only code 6 or
7 county included Nantucket Island, which does not seem comparable to rural counties in other
states. In these six cases, we selected the county seat in the most rural county available.

Data on Median-Valued Homes

This study compares homeowner property taxes using a “median value analysis”, which sets the
home value in each city equal to the median value of owner-occupied housing units in the city, or
for smaller cities, in the relevant county. This data comes from the one-year or five-year data in
the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey for 2016, as appropriate. We intend this
comparison to show how differences in local real estate markets affect residential property taxes.

34
Counties coded “6” are nonmetro counties with urban population of 2,500 to 19,999 that are adjacent to a metro
area; counties coded “7” are nonmetro counties within the same population range that are not adjacent to a metro
area.

46
Note that the payable 2014 edition of this study was the first to use ACS data on median home
values. Prior to that, median home value data came from metropolitan-area data provided by the
National Association of Realtors. Readers should make time-trend comparisons of tax burdens on
median-valued homes before and after this methodological change with care.

Special Property Tax Provisions

“Special property tax provisions” are provisions that, in practice, apply to less than half of all
taxpayers for a given class of property. Special provisions are normally triggered by special
circumstances or attributes of the taxpayer or property. Examples include senior tax deferrals, and
special valuation exclusions based on age, health or special use.

Because the goal of this study is to compare the actual tax experience of the largest number of
taxpayers in the selected jurisdictions, this study excludes special property tax provisions.

C. Property Classes and Assumptions About Value

This report studies hypothetical properties in four property classes (1) residential homesteads, (2)
commercial property, (3) industrial property, and (4) apartments. Except for apartments, the study
calculates taxes for all properties based on multiple values that are fixed across states. All classes
of business property (commercial, industrial, and apartments) have a corresponding set of
assumptions regarding the amount of personal property each parcel has.

These four classes were selected for a variety of reasons. First, they represent the vast majority of
property value across the country. In Minnesota, these four classes represent nearly 70% of market
value. It is likely that this figure is similar to other states, and may be even higher in states that do
not have substantial agricultural operations. Second, these are the classes of property that
policymakers tend to focus time and attention on. Third, most omitted classes of property are either
not relevant to all fifty states (cabin properties, for example) or require more complex work to
develop assumptions about value (public utilities and farms, for example).

Selection of Fixed Values

This report compares the tax burdens various property tax systems across the nation impose on a
fixed amount of value. Holding property values constant across all jurisdictions controls for the
effects differences in property values have on effective tax rates. The specific fixed values the
study uses for homes, commercial, and industrial properties were largely chosen between 1995
and 2000 to represent a low-valued35, medium-valued, and high-valued parcel.

Over time we have added or eliminated property values when appropriate. However, to preserve
the usefulness of time-trend comparisons we have not changed any fixed values after their first
appearance in the report.

35
Note that the study no longer includes the $70,000 “low-valued” home.

47
Importantly, in most locations the effective tax rates for commercial and industrial properties do
not vary much with value. Therefore, with few exceptions the specific fixed values selected for
inclusion in the report are not of major consequence.

Real and Personal Property

The treatment of personal property is a significant part of each state’s property tax regime. Because
personal property exemptions (or lack thereof) vary from state to state, creating accurate property
tax comparisons will depend in large part on making accurate assumptions about personal
property. This is especially true with regard to industrial parcels, which have much higher
proportions of personal property than do commercial properties in general.

Making these assumptions is challenging because the specific mix of real and personal property
obviously varies by industry and location. With the permission of the Minnesota Department of
Revenue’s Research Division, we have borrowed the methodology they use to determine shares of
real and personal business property in their biennial Tax Incidence Study.36 Using that
methodology, we have calculated state-specific real property, machinery and equipment, fixtures,
and inventory shares for industrial parcels. The findings this model generates indicate that the
median split for industrial parcels nationwide is 45.5% land and buildings (real property) and
54.5% personal property. Overall, the split ranges from 41.0% real/59.0% personal (Michigan) to
49.6% real/50.4% personal (Massachusetts).

PROPERTY CLASSES AND TRUE MARKET VALUES

Values of Property
Class Real Mach. & Inventories Fixtures Total
Equip.

Homestead $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $150,000

$300,000 $0 $0 $0 $300,000
Apartments $600,000 $0 $0 $30,000 $630,000
Commercial $100,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $120,000
$1,000,000 $0 $0 $200,000 $1,200,000
$25,000,000 $0 $0 $5,000,000 $30,000,000
Industrial $100,000 $50,000 $40,000 $10,000 $200,000
(50% Personal) $1,000,000 $500,000 $400,000 $100,000 $2,000,000
$25,000,000 $12,500,000 $10,000,000 $2,500,00 $50,000,000
Industrial $100,000 $75,000 $60,000 $15,000 $250,000
(60% Personal) $1,000,000 $750,000 $600,000 $150,000 $2,500,000
$25,000,000 $18,750,000 $15,000,000 $3,750,000 $62,500,000

These results suggest a two-assumption approach, with one set of rankings assuming 40% real
property/60% personal property and a second set of rankings assuming 50% real property/50%
personal property. The following table summarizes the assumed true market values and assessed
value of personal property used for each property class.

36
Tax Incidence Studies are available on the website of the Minnesota Department of Revenue:
http://www.revenue.state.mn.us/research_stats/Pages/Tax_Incidence_Studies.aspx.

48
This study does not include intangibles such as bank balances or financial securities in the
property tax calculations.

Definitions of Real and Personal Property

The types of property found in this study are defined as follows:

 Real Property: consists of land and buildings not classified as personal property for tax
purposes.
 Machinery and Equipment: includes large and ponderous equipment, generally not
portable and often mounted on special foundations. Examples include large printing
presses and assembly robots.
 Inventories: includes raw materials, unfinished products, supplies and similar items used
by manufacturers. Does not include any inventory retailers hold for sale.
 Fixtures: includes items such as office furnishings, display racks, tools and similar items,
but not motor vehicles. In the case of apartments, it includes such things as stoves,
refrigerators, garbage disposals, air conditioners, drapes, and lawn care equipment.

D. Estimates of Assessment Limitation Effects

This study estimates the effect that provisions have which deliver property tax relief for
homeowners by limiting increases in home value or property taxes at the parcel level. Generally,
the value of parcel-specific assessment limitations results from a combination of the length of
homeowner tenure and changes in the market value of the parcel relative to the provisions of the
applicable limitation. This study uses data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey
to estimate that average length of homeowner tenure for locations where assessment limitation
provisions are in effect. ZIP5 data from the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s House Price Index
for All Transactions is used to estimate the average change in residential property value each
individual city where assessment limitation provisions are in effect. We then model the average
change in residential property value over the average length of homeowner tenure in each of these
locations and compare that change to the allowable growth in homestead value and/or taxes during
that period to determine the amount of excluded value or property tax relief these provisions afford.

One final key assumption: in most instances the model represents the experience of a homeowner
with an “average” length of tenure.37 Therefore, if the model returns no excluded value, then we
assume that the provision does not apply to half or more of homeowners and thus does not apply.

MCFE prepared a working paper for the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy on this subject where
there is considerably more detailed information on the methodology underlying this analysis. 38

37
Except for New York City and Portland (OR). In those cities the assessment limitations do no reset upon sale of
the property, and so the duration of the assessment limitation is set equal to the lesser of the average age of an
owner-occupied home (i.e. number of years since average home was constructed, which is 65 years in New York
City and 64 years in Portland) or the period during which assessment limitations have been in effect (since 1981 in
New York City and 1996 in Portland).
38
Twait, Aaron. 2012. “Property Assessment Limits: Effects on Homestead Property Tax Burdens and National
Property Tax Rankings.” Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. April.

49
 Appendix Table 1a: Factors Correlated with Homestead Property Tax Rates in Large U.S. Cities
(Effective Tax Rate for Median Valued Home, with Assessment Limits)

Tax Rate Property Tax Reliance Median Home Value Local Gov't Spending Classification Ratio
Rank Tax Rank Impact on Rank Impact on Rank Impact on Commercial Apartments Impact on
State City (1-73) Rate (1-73) Tax Rate (1-73) Tax Rate (1-73) Tax Rate Rank (1-73) Rank (1-73) Tax Rate
Alabama Birmingham 63 0.67 70 -0.60 70 0.73 32 0.00 10 5 -0.53
Alaska Anchorage 31 1.34 9 0.58 14 -0.37 39 -0.03 46 39 0.16
Arizona Mesa 62 0.72 47 -0.20 38 0.00 66 -0.23 16 27 -0.09
Arizona Phoenix 44 1.01 48 -0.20 35 -0.02 54 -0.18 22 30 -0.04
Arizona Tucson 33 1.22 39 -0.07 59 0.31 63 -0.22 15 28 -0.08
Arkansas Little Rock 40 1.06 65 -0.51 47 0.22 57 -0.20 31 20 0.04
California Fresno 52 0.83 43 -0.11 30 -0.08 35 -0.02 51 46 0.18
California Long Beach 60 0.74 62 -0.45 10 -0.78 6 0.35 55 50 0.19
California Los Angeles 64 0.66 50 -0.26 6 -0.90 5 0.43 57 52 0.19
California Oakland 59 0.75 56 -0.34 4 -0.97 4 0.65 58 53 0.19
California Sacramento 66 0.65 57 -0.37 16 -0.33 12 0.21 53 48 0.19
California San Diego 51 0.84 32 0.07 9 -0.86 31 0.01 56 51 0.19
California San Francisco 68 0.65 55 -0.32 1 -1.36 2 1.04 61 55 0.20
California San Jose 55 0.82 40 -0.08 2 -1.15 18 0.11 60 54 0.19
Colorado Colorado Springs 71 0.45 71 -0.60 25 -0.13 25 0.06 1 67 -0.47
Colorado Denver 65 0.66 69 -0.58 13 -0.47 7 0.34 4 44 -0.46
Connecticut Bridgeport 1 3.81 1 1.27 43 0.14 38 -0.03 62 56 0.20
DC Washington 61 0.72 64 -0.51 7 -0.87 1 1.68 19 32 -0.05
Delaware Wilmington 28 1.46 33 -0.01 58 0.30 20 0.10 73 56 0.27
Florida Jacksonville 53 0.83 37 -0.04 48 0.24 34 -0.01 28 15 -0.02

How to Interpret Each Factor’s Impact on a City’s Tax Rate

The columns labeled “Impact on Tax Rate” shows how each factor is expected to affect the tax rate in that city relative to a scenario where the city had the average
value for that variable—a positive value means that factor increases the city’s tax rate, while a negative value means that factor decreases the city ’s tax rate.

For example, consider Birmingham, Alabama. The city has the 70th highest property tax reliance (4th lowest), which is predicted to decrease the city’s tax rate on a
median valued home by 0.60 percentage points relative to a city with average property tax reliance. An alternative way to interpret this data is that if Birmingham
had the average property tax reliance and all other characteristics of the city were unchanged (home values, government spend ing, etc.), then the city’s tax rate
would be 0.60 percentage points higher, which at 1.26% would be 32nd highest. Birmingham also has the 70 th highest median home value (4th lowest), which is
expected to increase their tax rate by 0.73 percentage points relative to a scenario where the city had the average home value for all cities in this analysis. Local
government spending per capita in Birmingham (32nd highest) equals the average for the cities in this analysis, and thus is not expected to affect the city’s tax rate.
Finally, Birmingham has significantly higher tax rates for commercial properties and apartments than for homestead properties; the classification ratio is 10th
highest for commercial properties and 5th highest for apartments. The city’s classification ratios are predicted to decrease the property t ax rate on a median valued
home by 0.53 percentage points compared to a city with the average classification ratio.
 Tax Rate Property Tax Reliance Median Home Value Local Gov't Spending Classification Ratio
Rank Tax Rank Impact on Rank Impact on Rank Impact on
State City (1-73) Rate (1-73) Tax Rate (1-73) Tax Rate (1-73) Tax Rate Commercial Apartments Impact
Florida Miami 48 0.90 34 -0.01 21 -0.25 27 0.05 37 24 0.08
Georgia Atlanta 39 1.08 42 -0.11 23 -0.20 9 0.32 26 14 -0.08
Hawaii Honolulu* 73 0.31 16 0.35 3 -0.99 73 -0.41 6 31 -0.35
Idaho Boise 54 0.83 11 0.44 33 -0.04 72 -0.38 23 7 -0.30
Illinois Aurora 2 3.76 4 0.99 44 0.14 60 -0.22 68 35 0.19
Illinois Chicago 26 1.54 38 -0.06 24 -0.14 10 0.32 8 73 -0.06
Indiana Indianapolis 43 1.03 41 -0.08 63 0.41 41 -0.05 7 3 -0.64
Iowa Des Moines 9 2.26 13 0.38 64 0.43 49 -0.11 29 11 -0.08
Kansas Wichita 34 1.19 24 0.16 66 0.45 58 -0.20 9 47 -0.13
Kentucky Louisville 35 1.18 53 -0.31 55 0.27 67 -0.24 47 70 0.20
Louisiana New Orleans 45 1.00 58 -0.38 31 -0.05 40 -0.03 14 13 -0.24
Maine Portland 19 1.89 8 0.67 20 -0.26 46 -0.09 44 37 0.15
Maryland Baltimore 13 2.07 30 0.09 53 0.26 21 0.09 27 40 0.09
Massachusetts Boston 70 0.51 3 1.14 11 -0.74 29 0.02 3 6 -0.79
Michigan Detroit 4 2.74 63 -0.49 73 1.34 19 0.11 40 21 0.06
Minnesota Minneapolis 30 1.35 35 -0.03 27 -0.10 23 0.09 13 16 -0.20
Mississippi Jackson 24 1.56 7 0.73 70 0.73 61 -0.22 18 8 -0.31
Missouri Kansas City 27 1.51 67 -0.54 57 0.30 30 0.01 17 56 -0.01
Montana Billings 47 0.95 22 0.19 34 -0.03 69 -0.27 36 56 0.15
Nebraska Omaha 16 2.01 23 0.18 56 0.28 36 -0.02 52 49 0.18
Nevada Las Vegas 36 1.14 54 -0.31 29 -0.08 48 -0.10 64 68 0.21
New Hampshire Manchester 10 2.26 6 0.76 32 -0.05 59 -0.21 72 56 0.24
New Jersey Newark* 3 3.16 2 1.27 27 -0.10 47 -0.10 71 56 0.24
New Mexico Albuquerque 32 1.25 46 -0.17 41 0.07 70 -0.29 39 45 0.14
New York Buffalo 17 1.93 66 -0.54 72 0.78 17 0.14 33 12 -0.02
New York New York City 69 0.55 51 -0.30 8 -0.86 3 0.86 5 1 -1.77
North Carolina Charlotte 42 1.04 68 -0.57 39 0.03 13 0.18 50 56 0.19
North Carolina Raleigh 46 0.98 17 0.29 26 -0.13 62 -0.22 59 56 0.20
North Dakota Fargo 41 1.06 45 -0.17 40 0.05 56 -0.18 69 36 0.19
Ohio Columbus 15 2.01 44 -0.14 60 0.33 44 -0.08 70 42 0.20

*Honolulu and Newark do not have data on property tax reliance or local government spending in the Fiscally Standardized Cities database, so statewide data on all local
governments is used instead (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 Census of Government Finances).

51
 Tax Rate Property Tax Reliance Median Home Value Local Gov't Spending Classification Ratio
Rank Tax Rank Impact on Rank Impact on Rank Impact on
State City (1-73) Rate (1-73) Tax Rate (1-73) Tax Rate (1-73) Tax Rate Commercial Apartments Impact
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 37 1.13 52 -0.30 49 0.24 71 -0.29 43 43 0.15
Oklahoma Tulsa 29 1.37 49 -0.26 62 0.40 64 -0.23 49 38 0.16
Oregon Portland 23 1.64 20 0.20 12 -0.55 33 0.00 62 56 0.20
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 38 1.10 72 -0.70 52 0.26 16 0.14 20 22 -0.09
Rhode Island Providence 22 1.69 5 0.90 42 0.13 42 -0.06 11 56 -0.10
South Carolina Charleston 72 0.44 36 -0.03 17 -0.31 45 -0.09 2 2 -1.21
South Dakota Sioux Falls 25 1.55 25 0.15 45 0.16 68 -0.24 67 29 0.17
Tennessee Memphis 20 1.85 31 0.09 69 0.65 15 0.14 24 9 -0.15
Tennessee Nashville 56 0.79 27 0.13 36 -0.01 26 0.05 24 9 -0.15
Texas Arlington 12 2.14 14 0.38 51 0.25 65 -0.23 34 23 0.06
Texas Austin 18 1.90 10 0.50 15 -0.34 24 0.07 42 26 0.10
Texas Dallas 14 2.02 29 0.12 49 0.24 28 0.03 32 19 0.04
Texas El Paso 5 2.60 18 0.28 65 0.43 52 -0.15 41 34 0.12
Texas Fort Worth 11 2.25 12 0.38 54 0.27 51 -0.15 35 18 0.04
Texas Houston 21 1.79 15 0.35 46 0.20 43 -0.07 30 17 0.01
Texas San Antonio 7 2.39 21 0.19 61 0.38 22 0.09 38 25 0.09
Utah Salt Lake City 57 0.79 28 0.12 19 -0.27 55 -0.18 21 69 0.02
Vermont Burlington 8 2.37 61 -0.41 18 -0.29 14 0.16 65 33 0.16
Virginia Virginia Beach 49 0.90 26 0.13 22 -0.23 53 -0.17 48 72 0.23
Washington Seattle 50 0.84 59 -0.38 5 -0.91 11 0.21 54 56 0.20
West Virginia Charleston 58 0.76 60 -0.39 67 0.48 50 -0.14 12 4 -0.54
Wisconsin Milwaukee 6 2.57 19 0.22 68 0.51 37 -0.02 45 41 0.16
Wyoming Cheyenne 67 0.65 73 -0.90 37 -0.01 8 0.32 66 71 0.24

52
 Appendix Table 1b: Factors Correlated with Commercial Property Tax Rates in Large U.S. Cities
(Effective Tax Rate for $1-Million Valued Commercial Property, with $200k in Fixtures)

Tax Rate Property Tax Reliance Median Home Value Local Gov't Spending Classification Ratio*
Rank Tax Rank Impact on Rank Impact on Rank Impact on Rank Impact on
State City (1-73) Rate (1-73) Tax Rate (1-73) Tax Rate (1-73) Tax Rate (1-73) Tax Rate
Alabama Birmingham 47 1.45 70 -0.64 70 0.91 32 0.00 10 0.33
Alaska Anchorage 48 1.44 9 0.63 14 -0.46 39 -0.05 46 -0.18
Arizona Mesa 41 1.62 47 -0.22 38 -0.01 66 -0.36 16 0.20
Arizona Phoenix 28 2.20 48 -0.22 35 -0.03 54 -0.28 22 0.13
Arizona Tucson 26 2.33 39 -0.07 59 0.39 63 -0.35 15 0.20
Arkansas Little Rock 50 1.40 65 -0.55 47 0.27 57 -0.31 31 -0.09
California Fresno 57 1.25 43 -0.12 30 -0.10 35 -0.02 51 -0.19
California Long Beach 58 1.22 62 -0.49 10 -0.98 6 0.55 55 -0.20
California Los Angeles 60 1.19 50 -0.28 6 -1.12 5 0.66 57 -0.20
California Oakland 52 1.35 56 -0.36 4 -1.22 4 1.01 58 -0.20
California Sacramento 65 1.14 57 -0.40 16 -0.42 12 0.33 53 -0.20
California San Diego 62 1.17 32 0.08 9 -1.07 31 0.01 56 -0.20
California San Francisco 61 1.17 55 -0.35 1 -1.70 2 1.62 61 -0.20
California San Jose 53 1.32 40 -0.09 2 -1.44 18 0.18 60 -0.20
Colorado Colorado Springs 40 1.63 71 -0.65 25 -0.17 25 0.09 1 0.99
Colorado Denver 27 2.31 69 -0.63 13 -0.59 7 0.53 4 0.94
Connecticut Bridgeport 3 3.81 1 1.37 43 0.17 38 -0.04 62 -0.21
DC Washington 55 1.30 64 -0.55 7 -1.09 1 2.62 19 0.16
Delaware Wilmington 67 1.07 33 -0.01 58 0.38 20 0.16 73 -0.33
Florida Jacksonville 39 1.68 37 -0.04 48 0.30 34 -0.02 28 -0.05
*Table shows impact of the commercial-homestead classification ratio

How to Interpret Each Factor’s Impact on a City’s Tax Rate

The columns labeled “Impact on Tax Rate” shows how each factor is expected to affect the tax rate in that city relative to a scenario where the city had the average
value for that variable—a positive value means that factor increases the city’s tax rate, while a negative value means that factor decreases the ci ty’s tax rate.

For example, consider Birmingham, Alabama. The city has the 70th highest property tax reliance (4th lowest), which is predicted to decrease the city’s commercial
property tax rate by 0.64 percentage points relative to a city with average property tax reliance. An alternative way to interpret this data is that if Birmingham had
the average property tax reliance and all other characteristics of the city were unchanged (home values, government spending, etc.), then the city’s commercial tax
rate would be 0.64 percentage points higher. Birmingham also has the 70 th highest median home value (4th lowest), which is expected to increase their tax rate by
0.91 percentage points relative to a scenario where the city had the average home value for all cities in this analysis. Local government spending per capita in
Birmingham equals the average for the cities in this analysis (32nd highest), and thus is not expected to affect the city’s tax rate. Finally, Birmingham has the 10th
highest commercial-homestead classification ratio, which is predicted to increase the commercial property tax rate by 0. 33 percentage points compared to a city
with the average classification ratio.

53
 Tax Rate Property Tax Reliance Median Home Value Local Gov't Spending Classification Ratio*
Rank Tax Rank Impact on Rank Impact on Rank Impact on Rank Tax
State City (1-73) Rate (1-73) Tax Rate (1-73) Tax Rate (1-73) Tax Rate (1-73) Rate
Florida Miami 35 1.88 34 -0.02 21 -0.31 27 0.08 37 -0.12
Georgia Atlanta 43 1.59 42 -0.11 23 -0.25 9 0.50 26 0.00
Hawaii Honolulu** 71 0.91 16 0.37 3 -1.24 73 -0.64 6 0.69
Idaho Boise 49 1.42 11 0.47 33 -0.06 72 -0.59 23 0.12
Illinois Aurora 6 3.43 4 1.07 44 0.18 60 -0.34 68 -0.25
Illinois Chicago 4 3.78 38 -0.07 24 -0.17 10 0.49 8 0.39
Indiana Indianapolis 21 2.46 41 -0.09 63 0.52 41 -0.08 7 0.42
Iowa Des Moines 7 3.00 13 0.41 64 0.53 49 -0.17 29 -0.06
Kansas Wichita 17 2.68 24 0.17 66 0.56 58 -0.31 9 0.36
Kentucky Louisville 56 1.26 53 -0.34 55 0.34 67 -0.37 47 -0.18
Louisiana New Orleans 32 2.05 58 -0.41 31 -0.06 40 -0.05 14 0.28
Maine Portland 31 2.06 8 0.72 20 -0.32 46 -0.14 44 -0.17
Maryland Baltimore 13 2.78 30 0.09 53 0.32 21 0.15 27 -0.05
Massachusetts Boston 36 1.82 3 1.22 11 -0.93 29 0.04 3 0.95
Michigan Detroit 1 4.24 63 -0.53 73 1.67 19 0.17 40 -0.13
Minnesota Minneapolis 9 2.85 35 -0.03 27 -0.13 23 0.14 13 0.30
Mississippi Jackson 10 2.84 7 0.79 70 0.91 61 -0.35 18 0.17
Missouri Kansas City 14 2.77 67 -0.58 57 0.38 30 0.02 17 0.17
Montana Billings 64 1.14 22 0.20 34 -0.04 69 -0.42 36 -0.12
Nebraska Omaha 30 2.07 23 0.20 56 0.35 36 -0.03 52 -0.19
Nevada Las Vegas 63 1.14 54 -0.34 29 -0.10 48 -0.15 64 -0.21
New Hampshire Manchester 34 1.88 6 0.82 32 -0.06 59 -0.33 72 -0.28
New Jersey Newark** 18 2.64 2 1.37 27 -0.13 47 -0.15 71 -0.28
New Mexico Albuquerque 44 1.49 46 -0.19 41 0.09 70 -0.44 39 -0.13
New York Buffalo 24 2.35 66 -0.58 72 0.98 17 0.21 33 -0.11
New York New York City 2 3.90 51 -0.32 8 -1.08 3 1.34 5 0.85
North Carolina Charlotte 66 1.08 68 -0.61 39 0.03 13 0.28 50 -0.19
North Carolina Raleigh 68 0.99 17 0.31 26 -0.16 62 -0.35 59 -0.20
North Dakota Fargo 69 0.96 45 -0.18 40 0.06 56 -0.29 69 -0.25
Ohio Columbus 37 1.79 44 -0.15 60 0.42 44 -0.12 70 -0.26
*Table shows impact of the commercial-homestead classification ratio
**Honolulu and Newark do not have data on property tax reliance or local government spending in the Fiscally Standardized Citie s database, so statewide data on all
local governments is used instead (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 Census of Government Finances).

54
 Tax Rate Property Tax Reliance Median Home Value Local Gov't Spending Classification Ratio*
Rank Tax Rank Impact on Rank Impact on Rank Impact on Rank Tax
State City (1-73) Rate (1-73) Tax Rate (1-73) Tax Rate (1-73) Tax Rate (1-73) Rate
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 54 1.30 52 -0.33 49 0.30 71 -0.45 43 -0.16
Oklahoma Tulsa 45 1.49 49 -0.28 62 0.50 64 -0.35 49 -0.18
Oregon Portland 22 2.42 20 0.21 12 -0.69 33 0.00 62 -0.21
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 33 1.97 72 -0.75 52 0.32 16 0.22 20 0.15
Rhode Island Providence 5 3.68 5 0.97 42 0.16 42 -0.10 11 0.33
South Carolina Charleston 38 1.77 36 -0.04 17 -0.38 45 -0.13 2 0.95
South Dakota Sioux Falls 46 1.45 25 0.16 45 0.19 68 -0.38 67 -0.23
Tennessee Memphis 11 2.83 31 0.09 69 0.82 15 0.22 24 0.04
Tennessee Nashville 59 1.21 27 0.14 36 -0.01 26 0.08 24 0.04
Texas Arlington 19 2.59 14 0.40 51 0.31 65 -0.36 34 -0.11
Texas Austin 29 2.13 10 0.53 15 -0.42 24 0.10 42 -0.15
Texas Dallas 20 2.55 29 0.13 49 0.30 28 0.05 32 -0.09
Texas El Paso 8 2.96 18 0.30 65 0.54 52 -0.24 41 -0.14
Texas Fort Worth 16 2.71 12 0.41 54 0.34 51 -0.24 35 -0.11
Texas Houston 23 2.36 15 0.38 46 0.26 43 -0.11 30 -0.06
Texas San Antonio 12 2.81 21 0.20 61 0.47 22 0.15 38 -0.13
Utah Salt Lake City 51 1.39 28 0.13 19 -0.34 55 -0.28 21 0.14
Vermont Burlington 25 2.35 61 -0.45 18 -0.37 14 0.24 65 -0.21
Virginia Virginia Beach 70 0.96 26 0.14 22 -0.28 53 -0.27 48 -0.18
Washington Seattle 72 0.85 59 -0.41 5 -1.14 11 0.33 54 -0.20
West Virginia Charleston 42 1.61 60 -0.42 67 0.60 50 -0.22 12 0.30
Wisconsin Milwaukee 15 2.75 19 0.24 68 0.64 37 -0.03 45 -0.17
Wyoming Cheyenne 73 0.61 73 -0.97 37 -0.01 8 0.50 66 -0.23
*Table shows impact of the commercial-homestead classification ratio

55
 Appendix Table 1c: Correlates of Cities’ Effective Tax Rates on Homestead Properties
(1) (2) Mean St. Dev. Data
Tax Rate on Median Valued Home N/A N/A 1.387 0.728 Effective tax rate on median valued home, with assessment limits
Source: 50-State Property Tax Comparison Study (Appendix Tables 2b, 2e)

Median Home Value -0.671*** -0.854*** 246,958 173,615 Median home value in city
(0.059) (0.112) Source: 2016 American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau)

Business Classification Ratio -0.397*** -0.256*** 1.453 0.670 Commercial-homestead classification ratio, with taxes on personal property
(0.100) (0.090) excluded for commercial properties
Source: 50-State Property Tax Comparison Study
Apartments Classification Ratio -0.494*** -0.362* 1.231 0.395 Apartment-homestead classification ratio, with taxes on personal property
(0.128) (0.182) excluded for apartments
Source: 50-State Property Tax Comparison Study
Property Tax Reliance 0.820*** 0.0325*** 40.5 13.8 Property taxes as a percent of own source revenue for the
(0.097) (0.006) fiscally standardized city (FiSC)
Source: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. FiSC database (2015).
Local Gov't Spending Per Capita 0.562*** 0.120*** 6.167 1.963 Direct expenditures per capita for the fiscally standardized city (FiSC)
(1000s) (0.149) (0.034) Source: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. FiSC database (2015).

State and Federal Aid -0.0485 0.00148 34.8 10.1 Intergovernmental revenue as a percent of general revenue for the
as % Local Gov't Budget (0.115) (0.006) fiscally standardized city (FiSC)
Source: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. FiSC database (2015).
Local as % State-Local Spending -0.142 -0.000225 49.6 7.5 Local government direct expenditures as a percent of state and local direct
(0.337) (0.010) expenditures (State-level variable)
Source: 2015 Survey of State and Local Gov’t Finances (U.S. Census Bureau)
Constant -0.228 10.57***
(1.332) (1.419)

N 69 69
R-sq 0.74 0.678
adj. R-sq 0.71 0.641
F 34.09 12.47
* p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01; robust standard errors in parenthesis.
Regression #1 shows elasticities with all variables measured in natural logs; these coefficients are reported in figure 1.
Regression #2 measures all variables in levels except for median home value, which is measured as the natural log; these coeffici ents are used in appendix table 1a.

Notes: Washington, DC and New York City were excluded from the regression because they have very atypical revenue structures, a nd as major outliers they significantly altered
the coefficient estimates and weakened the overall fit for the model. Honolulu and Newark were excluded because they do not h ave data in the FiSC database on property tax
reliance or state and federal aid as a percent of the local government budget. The means and standard deviations shown in the table also exclude these four cities .
56
 Appendix Table 1d: Correlates of Cities’ Effective Tax Rates on Commercial Properties
(1) (2) Mean St. Dev. Data
Tax Rate on Commercial Property N/A N/A 1.961 0.813 Effective tax rate on $1-Million Commercial Property
Source: 50-State Property Tax Comparison Study (Appendix Tables 3a, 3b)

Median Home Value -0.500*** -1.069*** 246,958 173,615 Median home value in city
(0.070) (0.185) Source: 2016 American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau)

Business Classification Ratio 0.493*** 0.456*** 1.453 0.670 Commercial-homestead classification ratio, with taxes on personal property
(0.097) (0.136) excluded for commercial properties
Source: 50-State Property Tax Comparison Study
Apartments Classification Ratio -0.352*** -0.501** 1.231 0.395 Apartment-homestead classification ratio, with taxes on personal property
(0.125) (0.198) excluded for apartments
Source: 50-State Property Tax Comparison Study
Property Tax Reliance 0.752*** 0.0350*** 40.5 13.8 Property taxes as a percent of own source revenue for the
(0.107) (0.005) fiscally standardized city (FiSC)
Source: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. FiSC database (2015).
Local Gov't Spending Per Capita 0.640*** 0.186*** 6.167 1.963 Direct expenditures per capita for the fiscally standardized city (FiSC)
(1000s) (0.153) (0.047) Source: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. FiSC database (2015).

State and Federal Aid 0.0997 0.00711 34.8 10.1 Intergovernmental revenue as a percent of general revenue for the
as % Local Gov't Budget (0.098) (0.006) fiscally standardized city (FiSC)
Source: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. FiSC database (2015).
Local as % State-Local Spending 0.129 0.00787 49.6 7.5 Local government direct expenditures as a percent of state and local direct
(0.305) (0.012) expenditures (State-level variable)
Source: 2015 Survey of State and Local Gov’t Finances (U.S. Census Bureau)
Constant -2.615** 11.79***
(1.266) (2.432)

N 69 69
R-sq 0.653 0.636
adj. R-sq 0.614 0.595
F 25.01 14.67
* p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01; robust standard errors in parenthesis.
Regression #1 shows elasticities with all variables measured in natural logs.
Regression #2 measures all variables in levels except for median home value, which is measured as the natural log; these coef ficients are used in appendix table 1b.

Notes: Washington, DC and New York City were excluded from the regression because they have very atypical revenue structures, and as major outliers they significantly altered
the coefficient estimates and weakened the overall fit for the model. Honolulu and Newark were excluded because they do not have data in the FiSC database on property tax
reliance or state and federal aid as a percent of the local government budget. The means and standard deviations shown in the table also exclude these four cities.
57
Appendix Table 2a: Homestead Property Taxes for Largest City in Each State: Median Valued Homes
Tax Rate (%) Tax Bill ($) Median
Change Change Home
State City Rate Rank Rate Rank Value
from ‘16 from ‘16
Alabama Birmingham 0.665% 48 1↑ 589 53 - 88,500
Alaska Anchorage 1.344% 24 - 4,313 11 1↑ 320,800
Arizona Phoenix 1.257% 27 2↑ 2,681 24 2↑ 213,300
Arkansas Little Rock 1.112% 34 1↓ 1,790 41 4↓ 161,000
California Los Angeles 1.179% 31 1↓ 6,997 3 - 593,500
Colorado Denver 0.658% 49 2↑ 2,373 29 5↑ 360,900
Connecticut Bridgeport 3.806% 1 1↑ 6,752 5 1↓ 177,400
DC Washington 0.719% 47 1↑ 4,144 12 1↓ 576,100
Delaware Wilmington 1.459% 22 1↓ 2,124 33 3↓ 145,600
Florida Jacksonville 1.258% 26 1↑ 1,984 38 1↑ 157,800
Georgia Atlanta 1.083% 36 1↓ 2,845 21 1↑ 262,600
Hawaii Honolulu 0.306% 53 - 2,024 37 2↓ 661,700
Idaho Boise 0.828% 44 1↑ 1,816 40 3↑ 219,200
Illinois Aurora* 3.756% 2 1↑ 6,618 7 2↓ 176,200
Illinois Chicago 1.642% 18 2↑ 4,004 13 - 243,900
Indiana Indianapolis 1.032% 39 1↓ 1,323 51 2↓ 128,200
Iowa Des Moines 2.262% 8 2↓ 2,852 20 1↑ 126,100
Kansas Wichita 1.194% 28 - 1,475 48 2↓ 123,500
Kentucky Louisville 1.183% 29 3↓ 1,786 43 5↓ 150,900
Louisiana New Orleans 0.997% 40 1↓ 2,190 32 3↓ 219,700
Maine Portland 1.890% 14 1↓ 5,303 8 - 280,600
Maryland Baltimore 2.073% 10 - 3,183 14 - 153,500
Massachusetts Boston 0.515% 51 1↑ 2,551 26 6↓ 495,400
Michigan Detroit 3.629% 3 2↓ 1,579 46 1↓ 43,500
Minnesota Minneapolis 1.351% 23 1↓ 3,178 15 - 235,200
Mississippi Jackson 1.555% 19 1↓ 1,376 49 1↓ 88,500
Missouri Kansas City 1.512% 21 2↓ 2,213 31 2↑ 146,300
Montana Billings 0.947% 41 2↑ 2,040 36 4↑ 215,500
Nebraska Omaha 2.010% 12 - 3,012 17 1↑ 149,900
Nevada Las Vegas 1.141% 33 1↑ 2,604 25 - 228,300
New Hampshire Manchester 2.257% 9 1↓ 4,950 10 1↓ 219,300
New Jersey Newark 3.163% 4 - 7,440 2 - 235,200
New Mexico Albuquerque 1.274% 25 - 2,441 28 4↓ 191,600
New York Buffalo* 1.929% 13 1↑ 1,610 45 2↑ 83,500
New York New York City 1.181% 30 2↑ 6,726 6 - 569,700
AVERAGE 1.495% 3,111 235,815
58
 Tax Rate (%) Tax Bill ($) Median
Change Change Home
State City Rate Rank Rate Rank Value
from ‘16 from ‘16
North Carolina Charlotte 1.036% 38 2↓ 2,087 34 2↓ 201,500
North Dakota Fargo 1.058% 37 3↑ 2,078 35 1↑ 196,400
Ohio Columbus 2.010% 11 - 2,829 22 3↓ 140,700
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 1.175% 32 1↓ 1,845 39 2↑ 157,100
Oregon Portland 2.424% 6 1↑ 9,577 1 - 395,100
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 1.102% 35 2↑ 1,697 44 - 154,000
Rhode Island Providence 1.692% 17 - 3,036 16 1↑ 179,400
South Carolina Charleston** 0.502% 52 NA 1,493 47 NA 297,700
South Dakota Sioux Falls 1.548% 20 3↑ 2,684 23 5↑ 173,400
Tennessee Memphis 1.845% 15 - 1,786 42 - 96,800
Texas Houston 1.795% 16 - 2,938 19 4↑ 163,700
Utah Salt Lake City 0.787% 45 1↓ 2,243 30 1↑ 285,100
Vermont Burlington 2.373% 7 2↑ 6,951 4 3↑ 292,900
Virginia Virginia Beach 0.900% 42 1↓ 2,444 27 - 271,400
Washington Seattle 0.838% 43 1↓ 5,079 9 1↑ 606,200
West Virginia Charleston 0.761% 46 - 906 52 - 119,000
Wisconsin Milwaukee 2.568% 5 - 2,945 18 2↓ 114,700
Wyoming Cheyenne 0.650% 50 - 1,366 50 - 210,200
AVERAGE 1.495% 3,111 235,815

* Illinois and New York have two cities included in this table, because the tax systems in Chicago and New York City are sign ificantly different from the rest of the state.
** Charleston, SC is now the largest city in the state and replaces Columbia, SC.
Source for median home values: 2016 American Community Survey, 1-year data

59
Appendix Table 2b: Homestead Property Taxes for Largest City in Each State: Median Valued Homes, with Assessment Limits
Tax Rate (%) Tax Bill ($) Median
Change Change Home
State City Rate Rank Rate Rank Value
from ‘16 from ‘16
Alabama Birmingham 0.665% 46 2↑ 589 53 - 88,500
Alaska Anchorage 1.344% 24 - 4,313 9 1↑ 320,800
Arizona Phoenix 1.007% 36 1↑ 2,148 32 3↑ 213,300
Arkansas Little Rock 1.062% 32 - 1,710 42 4↓ 161,000
California Los Angeles 0.664% 47 1↓ 3,943 11 - 593,500
Colorado Denver 0.658% 48 2↑ 2,373 28 5↑ 360,900
Connecticut Bridgeport 3.806% 1 - 6,752 3 1↓ 177,400
DC Washington 0.719% 45 2↑ 4,144 10 1↓ 576,100
Delaware Wilmington 1.459% 22 1↓ 2,124 33 4↓ 145,600
Florida Jacksonville 0.829% 41 3↓ 1,308 49 2↓ 157,800
Georgia Atlanta 1.083% 31 1↓ 2,845 21 1↑ 262,600
Hawaii Honolulu 0.306% 53 - 2,024 37 3↓ 661,700
Idaho Boise 0.828% 42 1↑ 1,816 38 4↑ 219,200
Illinois Aurora* 3.756% 2 - 6,618 4 1↓ 176,200
Illinois Chicago 1.542% 20 - 3,760 12 - 243,900
Indiana Indianapolis 1.032% 35 1↓ 1,323 48 1↑ 128,200
Iowa Des Moines 2.262% 7 1↓ 2,852 20 1↑ 126,100
Kansas Wichita 1.194% 26 1↑ 1,475 45 1↓ 123,500
Kentucky Louisville 1.183% 27 1↓ 1,786 40 3↓ 150,900
Louisiana New Orleans 0.997% 37 2↓ 2,190 31 3↓ 219,700
Maine Portland 1.890% 13 1↓ 5,303 6 - 280,600
Maryland Baltimore 2.073% 9 - 3,183 13 - 153,500
Massachusetts Boston 0.515% 51 - 2,551 25 5↓ 495,400
Michigan Detroit 2.744% 4 - 1,194 51 3↓ 43,500
Minnesota Minneapolis 1.351% 23 1↓ 3,178 14 - 235,200
Mississippi Jackson 1.555% 18 - 1,376 46 - 88,500
Missouri Kansas City 1.512% 21 2↓ 2,213 30 2↑ 146,300
Montana Billings 0.947% 38 3↑ 2,040 36 3↑ 215,500
Nebraska Omaha 2.010% 11 - 3,012 17 1↑ 149,900
Nevada Las Vegas 1.141% 28 - 2,604 24 1↑ 228,300
New Hampshire Manchester 2.257% 8 1↓ 4,950 8 1↓ 219,300
New Jersey Newark 3.163% 3 - 7,440 1 - 235,200
New Mexico Albuquerque 1.252% 25 - 2,399 27 3↓ 191,600
New York Buffalo* 1.929% 12 1↑ 1,610 44 1↑ 83,500
New York New York City 0.546% 50 2↑ 3,109 15 - 569,700
AVERAGE 1.424% 2,885 235,185
60
 Tax Rate (%) Tax Bill ($) Median
Change Change Home
State City Rate Rank Rate Rank Value
from ‘16 from ‘16
North Carolina Charlotte 1.036% 34 3↓ 2,087 34 3↓ 201,500
North Dakota Fargo 1.058% 33 3↑ 2,078 35 1↑ 196,400
Ohio Columbus 2.010% 10 - 2,829 22 3↓ 140,700
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 1.135% 29 - 1,782 41 - 157,100
Oregon Portland 1.645% 17 - 6,498 5 - 395,100
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 1.102% 30 3↑ 1,697 43 - 154,000
Rhode Island Providence 1.692% 16 - 3,036 16 1↑ 179,400
South Carolina Charleston** 0.435% 52 NA 1,296 50 NA 297,700
South Dakota Sioux Falls 1.548% 19 4↑ 2,684 23 4↑ 173,400
Tennessee Memphis 1.845% 14 - 1,786 39 1↑ 96,800
Texas Houston 1.795% 15 - 2,938 19 4↑ 163,700
Utah Salt Lake City 0.787% 43 1↓ 2,243 29 1↑ 285,100
Vermont Burlington 2.373% 6 2↑ 6,951 2 2↑ 292,900
Virginia Virginia Beach 0.900% 39 - 2,444 26 - 271,400
Washington Seattle 0.838% 40 - 5,079 7 1↑ 606,200
West Virginia Charleston 0.761% 44 - 906 52 - 119,000
Wisconsin Milwaukee 2.568% 5 - 2,945 18 2↓ 114,700
Wyoming Cheyenne 0.650% 49 - 1,366 47 3↑ 210,200
AVERAGE 1.424% 2,885 235,185

* Illinois and New York have two cities included in this table, because the tax systems in Chicago and New York City are sign ificantly different from the rest of the state.
** Charleston, SC is now the largest city in the state and replaces Columbia, SC.
Source for median home values: 2016 American Community Survey, 1-year data

61
 Appendix Table 2c: Homestead Property Taxes for Largest City in Each State: Homes worth $150,000 and $300,000
$150,000 Property Value $300,000 Property Value Tax Rate
Change Change Varies with
State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Property Value
from ‘16 from ‘16
Alabama Birmingham 0.690% 1,035 47 1↑ 0.707% 2,122 47 1↑ X
Alaska Anchorage 1.298% 1,947 23 4↑ 1.338% 4,013 25 - X
Arizona Phoenix 1.257% 1,885 25 4↑ 1.257% 3,771 27 6↑
Arkansas Little Rock 1.096% 1,644 33 - 1.212% 3,637 30 2↓ X
California Los Angeles 1.137% 1,706 32 - 1.165% 3,496 33 2↑ X
Colorado Denver 0.658% 986 48 2↑ 0.658% 1,973 48 2↑
Connecticut Bridgeport 3.806% 5,709 1 1↑ 3.806% 11,418 2 1↑
DC Washington 0.416% 623 51 - 0.621% 1,863 50 1↑ X
Delaware Wilmington 1.459% 2,189 22 2↓ 1.459% 4,377 23 -
Florida Jacksonville 1.234% 1,851 26 - 1.474% 4,421 22 2↓ X
Georgia Atlanta 0.721% 1,081 46 2↓ 1.142% 3,427 35 5↓ X
Hawaii Honolulu 0.162% 242 52 - 0.255% 765 52 1↑ X
Idaho Boise 0.782% 1,173 44 1↑ 1.026% 3,079 41 1↓ X
Illinois Aurora* 3.693% 5,540 2 1↑ 3.906% 11,717 1 - X
Illinois Chicago 1.513% 2,270 20 1↑ 1.680% 5,040 19 - X
Indiana Indianapolis 1.034% 1,551 38 3↓ 1.042% 3,126 39 - X
Iowa Des Moines 2.291% 3,436 7 1↓ 2.368% 7,103 7 1↓ X
Kansas Wichita 1.201% 1,801 28 - 1.216% 3,649 29 - X
Kentucky Louisville 1.183% 1,775 29 5↓ 1.183% 3,550 32 5↓
Louisiana New Orleans 0.783% 1,175 43 - 1.120% 3,359 37 3↓ X
Maine Portland 1.764% 2,646 16 2↓ 1.899% 5,698 14 - X
Maryland Baltimore 2.073% 3,110 10 - 2.073% 6,220 10 1↑
Massachusetts Boston 0.101% 151 53 - 0.195% 585 53 1↓ X
Michigan Detroit 3.629% 5,444 3 2↓ 3.629% 10,888 3 1↓
Minnesota Minneapolis 1.231% 1,847 27 4↓ 1.397% 4,191 24 2↓ X
Mississippi Jackson 1.694% 2,541 17 1↑ 1.794% 5,383 17 - X
Missouri Kansas City 1.512% 2,269 21 2↓ 1.512% 4,537 21 -
Montana Billings 0.947% 1,420 39 2↑ 0.947% 2,840 42 2↑
Nebraska Omaha 2.010% 3,014 12 1↑ 2.010% 6,029 13 -
Nevada Las Vegas 1.141% 1,711 31 - 1.141% 3,422 36 -
New Hampshire Manchester 2.257% 3,386 8 - 2.257% 6,772 8 -
New Jersey Newark 3.163% 4,745 4 - 3.163% 9,490 4 -
New Mexico Albuquerque 1.262% 1,893 24 1↑ 1.290% 3,870 26 - X
New York Buffalo* 2.007% 3,010 13 2↓ 2.055% 6,166 11 1↓ X
New York New York City 1.096% 1,644 34 3↑ 1.153% 3,460 34 3↑ X
AVERAGE 1.455% 2,182 1.516% 4,548 N = 27
62
 $150,000 Property Value $300,000 Property Value Tax Rate
Change Change Varies with
State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Property Value
from ‘16 from ‘16
North Carolina Charlotte 1.036% 1,553 37 3↓ 1.036% 3,107 40 2↓
North Dakota Fargo 1.058% 1,587 36 2↑ 1.058% 3,174 38 3↑
Ohio Columbus 2.010% 3,016 11 1↑ 2.010% 6,031 12 -
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 1.171% 1,757 30 - 1.209% 3,627 31 1↑ X
Oregon Portland 2.424% 3,636 6 1↑ 2.424% 7,272 6 1↑
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 1.095% 1,642 35 1↑ 1.233% 3,700 28 3↑ X
Rhode Island Providence 1.692% 2,539 18 1↓ 1.692% 5,077 18 -
South Carolina Charleston** 0.502% 752 50 NA 0.502% 1,505 51 NA
South Dakota Sioux Falls 1.548% 2,322 19 3↑ 1.548% 4,644 20 4↑
Tennessee Memphis 1.845% 2,768 14 1↑ 1.845% 5,536 16 -
Texas Houston 1.778% 2,667 15 1↑ 1.879% 5,636 15 - X
Utah Salt Lake City 0.787% 1,180 42 - 0.787% 2,360 45 -
Vermont Burlington 2.104% 3,156 9 - 2.133% 6,399 9 - X
Virginia Virginia Beach 0.900% 1,351 40 1↓ 0.900% 2,701 43 1↓
Washington Seattle 0.838% 1,257 41 1↓ 0.838% 2,514 44 1↓
West Virginia Charleston 0.761% 1,141 45 1↑ 0.761% 2,283 46 -
Wisconsin Milwaukee 2.612% 3,918 5 - 2.685% 8,055 5 - X
Wyoming Cheyenne 0.650% 975 49 - 0.650% 1,950 49 -
AVERAGE 1.455% 2,182 1.516% 4,548 N = 27

* Illinois and New York have two cities included in this table, because the tax systems in Chicago and New York City are sign ificantly different from the rest of the state.
** Charleston, SC is now the largest city in the state and replaces Columbia, SC.

63
Appendix Table 2d: Homestead Property Taxes for the Largest Fifty U.S. Cities: Median Valued Homes
Tax Rate (%) Tax Bill ($) Median
Change Change Home
State City Rate Rank Rate Rank Value
from ‘16 from ‘16
Arizona Mesa 0.853% 44 1↑ 1,783 43 2↑ 209,000
Arizona Phoenix 1.257% 24 4↑ 2,681 28 3↑ 213,300
Arizona Tucson 1.230% 25 2↓ 1,771 44 2↓ 144,000
California Fresno 1.209% 26 1↑ 2,750 27 1↑ 227,500
California Long Beach 1.202% 27 7↑ 6,237 8 - 518,900
California Los Angeles 1.179% 31 2↓ 6,997 5 - 593,500
California Oakland 1.334% 20 - 8,667 4 - 649,700
California Sacramento 1.111% 36 2↑ 3,408 15 - 306,900
California San Diego 1.155% 34 2↓ 6,555 7 - 567,400
California San Francisco 1.164% 33 2↓ 11,922 1 - 1,024,000
California San Jose 1.306% 21 3↑ 10,471 2 - 802,000
Colorado Colorado Springs 0.450% 50 - 1,097 50 - 243,600
Colorado Denver 0.658% 48 - 2,373 34 3↑ 360,900
DC Washington 0.719% 47 - 4,144 12 - 576,100
Florida Jacksonville 1.258% 23 2↑ 1,984 38 3↑ 157,800
Florida Miami 1.592% 16 1↓ 4,420 11 - 277,700
Georgia Atlanta 1.083% 38 2↓ 2,845 25 1↑ 262,600
Illinois Chicago 1.642% 15 2↑ 4,004 13 - 243,900
Indiana Indianapolis 1.032% 40 - 1,323 49 - 128,200
Kansas Wichita 1.194% 28 2↓ 1,475 48 - 123,500
Kentucky Louisville 1.183% 29 7↓ 1,786 42 2↓ 150,900
Louisiana New Orleans 0.997% 41 - 2,190 36 2↓ 219,700
Maryland Baltimore 2.073% 8 1↓ 3,183 20 6↓ 153,500
Massachusetts Boston 0.515% 49 - 2,551 30 5↓ 495,400
Michigan Detroit 3.629% 1 - 1,579 47 - 43,500
Minnesota Minneapolis 1.351% 19 1↓ 3,178 21 5↓ 235,200
Missouri Kansas City 1.512% 17 1↓ 2,213 35 1↑ 146,300
Nebraska Omaha 2.010% 11 - 3,012 22 - 149,900
Nevada Las Vegas 1.141% 35 - 2,604 29 1↑ 228,300
New Mexico Albuquerque 1.274% 22 1↓ 2,441 32 3↓ 191,600
New York New York City 1.181% 30 3↑ 6,726 6 - 569,700
North Carolina Charlotte 1.036% 39 2↓ 2,087 37 2↓ 201,500
North Carolina Raleigh 0.981% 42 - 2,379 33 1↓ 242,500
Ohio Columbus 2.010% 10 1↓ 2,829 26 2↓ 140,700
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 1.175% 32 2↓ 1,845 39 4↑ 157,100
AVERAGE 1.434% 3,594 282,592
64
 Tax Rate (%) Tax Bill ($) Median
Change Change Home
State City Rate Rank Rate Rank Value
from ‘16 from ‘16
Oklahoma Tulsa 1.403% 18 1↑ 1,825 40 1↓ 130,100
Oregon Portland 2.424% 4 1↑ 9,577 3 - 395,100
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 1.102% 37 2↑ 1,697 45 1↑ 154,000
Tennessee Memphis 1.845% 13 - 1,786 41 3↑ 96,800
Tennessee Nashville 0.789% 46 3↓ 1,661 46 8↓ 210,600
Texas Arlington 2.148% 7 1↑ 3,327 16 4↑ 154,900
Texas Austin 1.898% 12 - 5,855 9 - 308,500
Texas Dallas 2.028% 9 1↑ 3,186 19 2↓ 157,100
Texas El Paso 2.603% 2 1↑ 3,261 17 1↑ 125,300
Texas Fort Worth 2.259% 6 - 3,411 14 9↑ 151,000
Texas Houston 1.795% 14 - 2,938 24 3↑ 163,700
Texas San Antonio 2.389% 5 1↓ 3,198 18 3↑ 133,900
Virginia Virginia Beach 0.900% 43 1↑ 2,444 31 2↑ 271,400
Washington Seattle 0.838% 45 1↑ 5,079 10 - 606,200
Wisconsin Milwaukee 2.568% 3 1↓ 2,945 23 4↓ 114,700
AVERAGE 1.434% 3,594 282,592
Source for median home values: 2016 American Community Survey, 1-year data

65
Appendix Table 2e: Homestead Property Taxes for the Largest Fifty U.S. Cities: Median Valued Homes, with Assessment Limits
Tax Rate (%) Tax Bill ($) Median
Change Change Home
State City Rate Rank Rate Rank Value
from ‘16 from ‘16
Arizona Mesa 0.719% 43 1↓ 1,502 45 1↑ 209,000
Arizona Phoenix 1.007% 29 4↑ 2,148 34 2↑ 213,300
Arizona Tucson 1.219% 20 1↑ 1,755 42 2↓ 144,000
California Fresno 0.830% 36 2↑ 1,889 37 5↑ 227,500
California Long Beach 0.744% 41 2↓ 3,862 10 2↓ 518,900
California Los Angeles 0.664% 44 1↓ 3,943 9 1↑ 593,500
California Oakland 0.755% 40 - 4,902 6 1↑ 649,700
California Sacramento 0.653% 46 2↓ 2,005 36 2↓ 306,900
California San Diego 0.837% 35 - 4,746 7 2↓ 567,400
California San Francisco 0.646% 47 1↓ 6,612 1 - 1,024,000
California San Jose 0.823% 38 3↑ 6,599 2 - 802,000
Colorado Colorado Springs 0.450% 50 - 1,097 50 - 243,600
Colorado Denver 0.658% 45 2↑ 2,373 31 4↑ 360,900
DC Washington 0.719% 42 3↑ 4,144 8 1↑ 576,100
Florida Jacksonville 0.829% 37 3↓ 1,308 48 1↓ 157,800
Florida Miami 0.901% 32 - 2,502 27 5↓ 277,700
Georgia Atlanta 1.083% 26 1↓ 2,845 23 2↑ 262,600
Illinois Chicago 1.542% 15 1↑ 3,760 11 - 243,900
Indiana Indianapolis 1.032% 28 - 1,323 47 2↑ 128,200
Kansas Wichita 1.194% 21 1↑ 1,475 46 1↓ 123,500
Kentucky Louisville 1.183% 22 2↓ 1,786 39 1↓ 150,900
Louisiana New Orleans 0.997% 30 1↓ 2,190 33 2↓ 219,700
Maryland Baltimore 2.073% 7 1↓ 3,183 16 4↓ 153,500
Massachusetts Boston 0.515% 49 1↓ 2,551 26 2↓ 495,400
Michigan Detroit 2.744% 1 - 1,194 49 1↓ 43,500
Minnesota Minneapolis 1.351% 18 1↓ 3,178 17 4↓ 235,200
Missouri Kansas City 1.512% 16 1↓ 2,213 32 1↑ 146,300
Nebraska Omaha 2.010% 10 1↓ 3,012 20 - 149,900
Nevada Las Vegas 1.141% 23 - 2,604 25 3↑ 228,300
New Mexico Albuquerque 1.252% 19 - 2,399 29 2↓ 191,600
New York New York City 0.546% 48 1↑ 3,109 19 5↓ 569,700
North Carolina Charlotte 1.036% 27 1↓ 2,087 35 3↓ 201,500
North Carolina Raleigh 0.981% 31 1↓ 2,379 30 1↓ 242,500
Ohio Columbus 2.010% 9 1↓ 2,829 24 1↓ 140,700
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 1.135% 24 - 1,782 41 2↑ 157,100
AVERAGE 1.279% 2,926 282,592
66
 Tax Rate (%) Tax Bill ($) Median
Change Change Home
State City Rate Rank Rate Rank Value
from ‘16 from ‘16
Oklahoma Tulsa 1.372% 17 1↑ 1,785 40 1↓ 130,100
Oregon Portland 1.645% 14 - 6,498 3 - 395,100
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 1.102% 25 2↑ 1,697 43 1↑ 154,000
Tennessee Memphis 1.845% 12 - 1,786 38 3↑ 96,800
Tennessee Nashville 0.789% 39 8↓ 1,661 44 7↓ 210,600
Texas Arlington 2.138% 6 1↑ 3,311 13 5↑ 154,900
Texas Austin 1.898% 11 - 5,855 4 - 308,500
Texas Dallas 2.018% 8 2↑ 3,170 18 3↓ 157,100
Texas El Paso 2.603% 2 1↑ 3,261 14 2↑ 125,300
Texas Fort Worth 2.248% 5 - 3,394 12 9↑ 151,000
Texas Houston 1.795% 13 - 2,938 22 4↑ 163,700
Texas San Antonio 2.389% 4 - 3,198 15 4↑ 133,900
Virginia Virginia Beach 0.900% 33 3↑ 2,444 28 2↑ 271,400
Washington Seattle 0.838% 34 3↑ 5,079 5 1↑ 606,200
Wisconsin Milwaukee 2.568% 3 1↓ 2,945 21 4↓ 114,700
AVERAGE 1.279% 2,926 282,592

Source for median home values: 2016 American Community Survey, 1-year data

67
 Appendix Table 2f: Homestead Property Taxes for the Largest Fifty U.S. Cities: Homes worth $150,000 and $300,000
$150,000 Property Value $300,000 Property Value Tax Rate
Change Change Varies with
State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Property Value
from ‘16 from ‘16
Arizona Mesa 0.853% 1,280 42 1↑ 0.853% 2,560 44 1↑
Arizona Phoenix 1.257% 1,885 21 6↑ 1.257% 3,771 24 7↑
Arizona Tucson 1.230% 1,845 25 1↓ 1.230% 3,690 26 2↓
California Fresno 1.189% 1,784 27 2↑ 1.218% 3,654 27 3↑ X
California Long Beach 1.162% 1,742 30 5↑ 1.190% 3,570 30 7↑ X
California Los Angeles 1.137% 1,706 32 1↓ 1.165% 3,496 32 1↑ X
California Oakland 1.286% 1,928 19 - 1.317% 3,951 21 - X
California Sacramento 1.083% 1,625 37 - 1.110% 3,330 39 1↑ X
California San Diego 1.115% 1,673 34 1↓ 1.142% 3,427 36 1↓ X
California San Francisco 1.118% 1,676 33 1↓ 1.145% 3,435 34 - X
California San Jose 1.256% 1,883 22 4↑ 1.286% 3,859 23 3↑ X
Colorado Colorado Springs 0.450% 676 48 - 0.450% 1,351 49 -
Colorado Denver 0.658% 986 47 - 0.658% 1,973 47 -
DC Washington 0.416% 623 49 - 0.621% 1,863 48 - X
Florida Jacksonville 1.234% 1,851 23 - 1.474% 4,421 18 1↓ X
Florida Miami 1.331% 1,997 18 - 1.614% 4,843 16 1↓ X
Georgia Atlanta 0.721% 1,081 46 - 1.142% 3,427 35 8↓ X
Illinois Chicago 1.513% 2,270 15 2↑ 1.680% 5,040 15 1↑ X
Indiana Indianapolis 1.034% 1,551 39 3↓ 1.042% 3,126 40 1↑ X
Kansas Wichita 1.201% 1,801 26 1↓ 1.216% 3,649 28 3↓ X
Kentucky Louisville 1.183% 1,775 28 7↓ 1.183% 3,550 31 8↓
Louisiana New Orleans 0.783% 1,175 45 - 1.120% 3,359 38 6↓ X
Maryland Baltimore 2.073% 3,110 8 1↓ 2.073% 6,220 9 -
Massachusetts Boston 0.101% 151 50 - 0.195% 585 50 - X
Michigan Detroit 3.629% 5,444 1 - 3.629% 10,888 1 -
Minnesota Minneapolis 1.231% 1,847 24 4↓ 1.397% 4,191 20 1↓ X
Missouri Kansas City 1.512% 2,269 16 1↓ 1.512% 4,537 17 1↑
Nebraska Omaha 2.010% 3,014 11 - 2.010% 6,029 11 -
Nevada Las Vegas 1.141% 1,711 31 1↓ 1.141% 3,422 37 1↓
New Mexico Albuquerque 1.262% 1,893 20 2↑ 1.290% 3,870 22 - X
New York New York City 1.096% 1,644 35 4↑ 1.153% 3,460 33 5↑ X
North Carolina Charlotte 1.036% 1,553 38 4↓ 1.036% 3,107 41 2↓
North Carolina Raleigh 0.981% 1,472 40 - 0.981% 2,943 42 -
Ohio Columbus 2.010% 3,016 10 1↓ 2.010% 6,031 10 -
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 1.171% 1,757 29 1↓ 1.209% 3,627 29 - X
AVERAGE 1.389% 2,083 1.456% 4,367 N = 31
68
 $150,000 Property Value $300,000 Property Value Tax Rate
Change Change Varies with
State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Property Value
from ‘16 from ‘16
Oklahoma Tulsa 1.416% 2,125 17 1↓ 1.462% 4,387 19 1↑ X
Oregon Portland 2.424% 3,636 4 1↑ 2.424% 7,272 5 -
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 1.095% 1,642 36 2↑ 1.233% 3,700 25 3↑ X
Tennessee Memphis 1.845% 2,768 12 - 1.845% 5,536 14 -
Tennessee Nashville 0.789% 1,183 44 3↓ 0.789% 2,366 46 3↓
Texas Arlington 2.141% 3,211 7 1↑ 2.255% 6,765 7 - X
Texas Austin 1.794% 2,691 13 - 1.895% 5,686 12 - X
Texas Dallas 2.019% 3,028 9 1↑ 2.119% 6,357 8 - X
Texas El Paso 2.654% 3,981 2 1↑ 2.784% 8,352 2 1↑ X
Texas Fort Worth 2.257% 3,386 6 - 2.370% 7,110 6 - X
Texas Houston 1.778% 2,667 14 - 1.879% 5,636 13 - X
Texas San Antonio 2.419% 3,629 5 1↓ 2.548% 7,643 4 - X
Virginia Virginia Beach 0.900% 1,351 41 1↑ 0.900% 2,701 43 1↑
Washington Seattle 0.838% 1,257 43 1↑ 0.838% 2,514 45 1↑
Wisconsin Milwaukee 2.612% 3,918 3 1↓ 2.685% 8,055 3 1↓ X
AVERAGE 1.389% 2,083 1.456% 4,367 N = 31

69
Appendix Table 2g: Homestead Property Taxes for Selected Rural Municipalities: Median Valued Homes
Tax Rate (%) Tax Bill ($) Median
Change Change Home
State City Rate Rank Rate Rank Value
from ‘16 from ‘16
Alabama Monroeville 0.369% 47 1↑ 391 49 - 105,800
Alaska Ketchican 1.087% 28 2↑ 2,527 13 - 232,500
Arizona Safford 0.760% 40 - 1,038 33 1↑ 136,600
Arkansas Pocahontas 0.236% 49 - 175 50 - 74,300
California Yreka 1.007% 32 - 1,509 23 3↓ 149,800
Colorado Walsenburg 0.577% 44 1↑ 526 47 1↑ 91,200
Connecticut Litchfield 2.005% 12 2↑ 7,019 1 - 350,000
Delaware Georgetown 0.621% 43 - 1,242 30 - 199,800
Florida Moore Haven 0.927% 33 - 681 42 1↓ 73,400
Georgia Fitzgerald 1.558% 18 1↑ 1,330 27 2↑ 85,400
Hawaii Kauai 0.203% 50 - 974 36 1↓ 479,200
Idaho Saint Anthony 0.834% 36 - 898 37 - 107,700
Illinois Galena 2.162% 8 1↓ 3,247 6 - 150,200
Indiana North Vernon 0.872% 34 - 742 39 - 85,100
Iowa Hampton 1.701% 17 2↓ 1,393 25 4↓ 81,900
Kansas Iola 2.051% 10 2↑ 1,579 20 7↑ 77,000
Kentucky Morehead 1.103% 27 2↓ 1,844 17 - 167,100
Louisiana Natchitoches 0.351% 48 1↓ 494 48 1↓ 140,900
Maine Rockland 1.947% 14 1↓ 3,088 8 - 158,600
Maryland Denton 1.550% 19 1↑ 2,730 9 - 176,100
Massachusetts Adams 2.116% 9 - 3,135 7 - 148,200
Michigan Manistique 2.035% 11 3↓ 1,261 28 2↓ 62,000
Minnesota Glencoe 1.251% 22 1↓ 1,553 21 3↓ 124,100
Mississippi Philadelphia 1.075% 30 1↑ 985 35 3↑ 91,600
Missouri Boonville 1.131% 25 3↑ 1,251 29 3↑ 110,600
Montana Glasgow 1.060% 31 2↓ 1,607 19 5↑ 151,600
Nebraska Sidney 2.169% 7 4↑ 2,727 10 - 125,700
Nevada Fallon 1.270% 21 1↑ 1,695 18 1↑ 133,500
New Hampshire Lancaster 2.718% 3 2↓ 4,553 4 1↑ 167,500
New Jersey Maurice River Twp 2.611% 4 - 4,384 5 1↓ 167,900
New Mexico Santa Rosa 0.811% 37 2↓ 725 40 - 89,400
New York Warsaw 2.830% 1 2↑ 2,725 11 1↑ 96,300
North Carolina Edenton 1.112% 26 1↑ 1,240 31 3↓ 111,500
North Dakota Devils Lake 1.086% 29 3↓ 1,008 34 1↓ 92,800
Ohio Bryan 1.523% 20 2↓ 1,433 24 2↓ 94,100
AVERAGE 1.340% 1,826 135,926
70
 Tax Rate (%) Tax Bill ($) Median
Change Change Home
State City Rate Rank Rate Rank Value
from ‘16 from ‘16
Oklahoma Mangum 0.783% 38 1↑ 610 43 2↑ 77,900
Oregon Tillamook 1.167% 24 - 2,066 15 1↓ 177,100
Pennsylvania Ridgway 2.731% 2 - 1,942 16 1↓ 71,100
Rhode Island Hopkinton 1.973% 13 3↓ 4,947 3 - 250,800
South Carolina Mullins 0.845% 35 2↑ 573 44 - 67,900
South Dakota Vermillion 1.908% 15 1↑ 2,538 12 4↑ 133,000
Tennessee Savannah 0.648% 42 - 567 45 2↓ 87,500
Texas Fort Stockton 1.747% 16 1↑ 1,522 22 3↑ 87,100
Utah Richfield 0.767% 39 1↓ 1,163 32 1↓ 151,600
Vermont Hartford 2.543% 5 - 5,772 2 - 227,000
Virginia Wise 0.571% 45 1↓ 699 41 1↑ 122,400
Washington Okanogan 1.191% 23 - 1,377 26 3↓ 115,600
West Virginia Elkins 0.514% 46 - 537 46 - 104,500
Wisconsin Rice Lake 2.171% 6 - 2,443 14 3↓ 112,500
Wyoming Worland 0.709% 41 - 857 38 2↓ 120,900
AVERAGE 1.340% 1,826 135,926

Source for median home values: 2016 American Community Survey, 5-year data

71
 Appendix Table 2h: Homestead Property Taxes for Selected Rural Municipalities: Homes worth $150,000 and $300,000
$150,000 Property Value $300,000 Property Value Tax Rate
Change Change Varies with
State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Property Value
from ‘16 from ‘16
Alabama Monroeville 0.381% 572 48 1↑ 0.396% 1,187 49 - X
Alaska Ketchican 1.087% 1,630 30 2↑ 1.087% 3,260 31 2↑
Arizona Safford 0.760% 1,139 40 - 0.760% 2,279 40 -
Arkansas Pocahontas 0.474% 710 47 - 0.590% 1,771 45 1↓ X
California Yreka 1.007% 1,511 33 - 1.032% 3,096 34 - X
Colorado Walsenburg 0.577% 866 44 1↑ 0.577% 1,732 46 1↑
Connecticut Litchfield 2.005% 3,008 12 3↑ 2.005% 6,016 13 4↑
Delaware Georgetown 0.621% 932 43 - 0.621% 1,864 43 2↑
Florida Moore Haven 1.604% 2,406 19 - 1.928% 5,785 16 - X
Georgia Fitzgerald 1.663% 2,494 18 - 1.733% 5,198 19 - X
Hawaii Kauai 0.100% 150 50 - 0.142% 427 50 - X
Idaho St. Anthony 0.834% 1,251 37 - 1.088% 3,264 30 2↑ X
Illinois Galena 2.161% 3,242 8 1↓ 2.309% 6,926 5 2↑ X
Indiana North Vernon 0.962% 1,443 34 - 0.962% 2,886 35 -
Iowa Hampton 1.803% 2,705 17 3↓ 1.864% 5,593 18 5↓ X
Kansas Iola 2.080% 3,120 10 1↑ 2.096% 6,287 9 3↑ X
Kentucky Morehead 1.103% 1,655 29 2↓ 1.103% 3,310 29 2↓
Louisiana Natchitoches 0.379% 569 49 1↓ 0.601% 1,803 44 1↓ X
Maine Rockland 1.931% 2,896 14 1↓ 2.079% 6,238 11 - X
Maryland Denton 1.550% 2,326 20 1↑ 1.550% 4,651 20 2↑
Massachusetts Adams 2.116% 3,173 9 - 2.116% 6,347 8 1↑
Michigan Manistique 2.035% 3,052 11 3↓ 2.035% 6,104 12 4↓
Minnesota Glencoe 1.329% 1,994 22 - 1.516% 4,549 22 2↓ X
Mississippi Philadelphia 1.203% 1,804 24 1↑ 1.303% 3,908 23 - X
Missouri Boonville 1.131% 1,696 27 3↑ 1.131% 3,392 27 3↑
Montana Glasgow 1.060% 1,590 32 1↓ 1.060% 3,180 33 2↓
Nebraska Sidney 2.169% 3,254 7 5↑ 2.169% 6,508 7 8↑
Nevada Fallon 1.270% 1,905 23 - 1.270% 3,810 24 -
New Hampshire Lancaster 2.718% 4,077 3 1↓ 2.718% 8,155 3 1↓
New Jersey Maurice River Twp 2.611% 3,916 4 - 2.611% 7,833 4 -
New Mexico Santa Rosa 0.837% 1,256 36 1↓ 0.856% 2,568 36 - X
New York Warsaw 3.057% 4,586 1 - 3.261% 9,782 1 - X
North Carolina Edenton 1.112% 1,668 28 1↑ 1.112% 3,337 28 1↑
North Dakota Devils Lake 1.086% 1,629 31 3↓ 1.086% 3,258 32 4↓
Ohio Bryan 1.523% 2,284 21 1↓ 1.523% 4,568 21 -
AVERAGE 1.373% 2,059 1.415% 4,244 N = 21
72
 $150,000 Property Value $300,000 Property Value Tax Rate
Change Change Varies with
State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Property Value
from ‘16 from ‘16
Oklahoma Mangum 0.828% 1,241 38 2↓ 0.852% 2,556 37 - X
Oregon Tillamook 1.167% 1,750 26 - 1.167% 3,500 26 -
Pennsylvania Ridgway 2.866% 4,300 2 1↑ 2.927% 8,782 2 1↑ X
Rhode Island Hopkinton 1.973% 2,959 13 3↓ 1.973% 5,918 15 5↓
South Carolina Mullins 0.845% 1,267 35 3↑ 0.845% 2,534 38 -
South Dakota Vermillion 1.908% 2,863 15 2↑ 1.908% 5,725 17 1↑
Tennessee Savannah 0.648% 972 42 - 0.648% 1,943 42 -
Texas Fort Stockton 1.898% 2,847 16 - 2.002% 6,007 14 - X
Utah Richfield 0.767% 1,151 39 - 0.767% 2,301 39 -
Vermont Hartford 2.193% 3,289 6 1↓ 2.081% 6,243 10 5↓ X
Virginia Wise 0.571% 857 45 1↓ 0.571% 1,714 47 1↓
Washington Okanogan 1.191% 1,787 25 1↓ 1.191% 3,573 25 -
West Virginia Elkins 0.514% 771 46 - 0.514% 1,541 48 -
Wisconsin Rice Lake 2.218% 3,327 5 1↑ 2.288% 6,863 6 - X
Wyoming Worland 0.709% 1,063 41 - 0.709% 2,126 41 -
AVERAGE 1.373% 2,059 1.415% 4,244 N = 21

73
 Appendix Table 3a: Commercial Property Taxes for Largest City in Each State
Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Tax Rate Lower Tax
$100,000 $1 Million $25 Million Varies with Rate on
Property Personal
State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank
Value Property
Alabama Birmingham 1.450% 1,740 34 (1 ↑) 1.450% 17,400 36 ( - ) 1.450% 435,000 39 (1 ↓)
Alaska Anchorage 1.202% 1,442 42 (1 ↑) 1.437% 17,240 37 (3 ↑) 1.462% 438,519 37 (3 ↑) X X
Arizona Phoenix 2.091% 2,509 23 ( - ) 2.198% 26,374 22 ( - ) 2.603% 780,772 16 (2 ↑) X X
Arkansas Little Rock 1.400% 1,680 36 ( - ) 1.400% 16,803 39 (2 ↓) 1.400% 420,074 40 (1 ↓)
California Los Angeles 1.193% 1,432 43 (1 ↓) 1.193% 14,316 44 ( - ) 1.193% 357,908 45 (1 ↓)
Colorado Denver 2.312% 2,774 19 (2 ↑) 2.312% 27,740 21 (2 ↑) 2.312% 693,496 22 (1 ↑)
Connecticut Bridgeport 3.806% 4,567 3 (1 ↑) 3.806% 45,671 3 (1 ↑) 3.806% 1,141,770 3 (1 ↑)
DC Washington 1.299% 1,559 39 (2 ↑) 1.299% 15,593 42 (1 ↑) 1.978% 593,413 28 ( - ) X X
Delaware Wilmington 1.068% 1,282 47 ( - ) 1.068% 12,821 48 (1 ↓) 1.068% 320,521 48 (1 ↓) X
Florida Jacksonville 1.428% 1,713 35 (1 ↓) 1.683% 20,197 31 ( - ) 1.718% 515,435 32 (1 ↓) X X
Georgia Atlanta 1.585% 1,903 31 (1 ↓) 1.585% 19,025 33 (1 ↓) 1.585% 475,630 34 (1 ↓)
Hawaii Honolulu 0.908% 1,089 51 ( - ) 0.908% 10,892 51 ( - ) 0.908% 272,304 51 ( - ) X
Idaho Boise 1.286% 1,543 40 ( - ) 1.420% 17,041 38 ( - ) 1.549% 464,696 35 ( - ) X X
Illinois Aurora* 3.432% 4,118 6(-) 3.432% 41,180 6(-) 3.432% 1,029,496 6(-) X
Illinois Chicago 3.784% 4,541 4 (1 ↓) 3.784% 45,405 4 (1 ↓) 3.784% 1,135,136 4 (1 ↓) X
Indiana Indianapolis 2.458% 2,950 14 (6 ↓) 2.458% 29,497 16 (5 ↓) 2.458% 737,435 17 (6 ↓)
Iowa Des Moines 2.270% 2,724 20 (2 ↑) 2.997% 35,968 7 (1 ↑) 3.251% 975,283 7(-) X X
Kansas Wichita 2.683% 3,220 12 (1 ↑) 2.683% 32,197 14 (1 ↑) 2.683% 804,923 14 (1 ↑)
Kentucky Louisville 1.260% 1,512 41 (3 ↓) 1.260% 15,124 43 (2 ↓) 1.260% 378,094 43 (1 ↓)
Louisiana New Orleans 2.054% 2,465 25 (1 ↓) 2.054% 24,652 26 (2 ↓) 2.054% 616,293 27 (3 ↓)
Maine Portland 2.057% 2,468 24 (1 ↑) 2.057% 24,681 25 ( - ) 2.057% 617,025 26 (1 ↓)
Maryland Baltimore 2.781% 3,337 9 (5 ↑) 2.781% 33,372 11 (5 ↑) 2.781% 834,311 11 (5 ↑)
Massachusetts Boston 1.818% 2,182 28 (2 ↓) 1.818% 21,818 29 (1 ↓) 1.818% 545,455 30 (1 ↓) X
Michigan Detroit 4.243% 5,091 1(-) 4.243% 50,914 1(-) 4.243% 1,272,858 1(-) X
Minnesota Minneapolis 2.255% 2,706 21 (4 ↓) 2.851% 34,208 8 (1 ↑) 2.952% 885,479 8 (1 ↑) X X
Mississippi Jackson 2.841% 3,410 7 (4 ↑) 2.841% 34,096 9 (4 ↑) 2.841% 852,390 9 (4 ↑)
Missouri Kansas City 2.770% 3,324 10 (2 ↑) 2.770% 33,244 12 (2 ↑) 2.770% 831,099 12 (2 ↑) X
Montana Billings 1.049% 1,258 48 (2 ↑) 1.137% 13,642 46 (3 ↑) 1.221% 366,444 44 (4 ↑) X X
Nebraska Omaha 1.898% 2,278 26 (1 ↑) 2.067% 24,800 24 (2 ↑) 2.085% 625,394 25 (2 ↑) X X
Nevada Las Vegas 1.139% 1,367 45 ( - ) 1.139% 13,670 45 (1 ↑) 1.139% 341,752 46 ( - )
New Hampshire Manchester 1.881% 2,257 27 (1 ↑) 1.881% 22,574 28 (1 ↑) 1.881% 564,344 29 (1 ↑) X
New Jersey Newark 2.636% 3,163 13 (2 ↑) 2.636% 31,634 15 (2 ↑) 2.636% 790,854 15 (2 ↑) X
New Mexico Albuquerque 1.494% 1,793 32 ( - ) 1.494% 17,928 34 ( - ) 1.494% 448,192 36 ( - )
New York Buffalo* 2.352% 2,822 17 (1 ↓) 2.352% 28,224 19 (1 ↓) 2.352% 705,609 20 (1 ↓) X
New York New York City 3.903% 4,684 2(-) 3.903% 46,840 2(-) 3.903% 1,170,997 2(-) X
AVERAGE 1.994% 2,393 2.055% 24,654 2.090% 627,074 N = 11 N = 26
74
 Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Tax Rate Lower Tax
$100,000 $1 Million $25 Million Varies with Rate on
Property Personal
State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank
Value Property
North Carolina Charlotte 1.079% 1,295 46 (2 ↓) 1.079% 12,945 47 (2 ↓) 1.079% 323,632 47 (2 ↓)
North Dakota Fargo 0.958% 1,150 49 ( - ) 0.958% 11,500 49 (1 ↑) 0.958% 287,488 49 (1 ↑) X
Ohio Columbus 2.151% 2,582 22 (7 ↑) 2.151% 25,815 23 (7 ↑) 2.151% 645,377 23 (9 ↑) X
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 1.301% 1,561 38 (1 ↑) 1.301% 15,608 41 (1 ↑) 1.301% 390,207 42 (1 ↑)
Oregon Portland 2.424% 2,909 15 (5 ↑) 2.424% 29,086 17 (4 ↑) 2.424% 727,154 18 (4 ↑)
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 1.143% 1,372 44 (2 ↑) 1.967% 23,599 27 ( - ) 2.125% 637,486 24 (2 ↑) X X
Rhode Island Providence 3.683% 4,420 5(-) 3.683% 44,197 5(-) 3.683% 1,104,934 5(-)
South Carolina Charleston** 1.772% 2,126 29 (NA) 1.772% 21,265 30 (NA) 1.772% 531,615 31 (NA)
South Dakota Sioux Falls 1.452% 1,743 33 (4 ↑) 1.452% 17,428 35 (4 ↑) 1.452% 435,691 38 (3 ↑) X
Tennessee Memphis 2.830% 3,395 8 (1 ↑) 2.830% 33,954 10 (2 ↑) 2.830% 848,861 10 (2 ↑) X
Texas Houston 2.356% 2,827 16 (2 ↑) 2.356% 28,268 18 (1 ↑) 2.356% 706,695 19 (1 ↑)
Utah Salt Lake City 1.387% 1,664 37 (4 ↓) 1.387% 16,638 40 (5 ↓) 1.387% 415,954 41 (4 ↓)
Vermont Burlington 2.348% 2,818 18 (1 ↑) 2.348% 28,178 20 ( - ) 2.348% 704,440 21 ( - ) X
Virginia Virginia Beach 0.958% 1,150 50 (2 ↓) 0.958% 11,499 50 (2 ↓) 0.958% 287,467 50 (1 ↓)
Washington Seattle 0.850% 1,020 52 ( - ) 0.850% 10,197 52 ( - ) 0.850% 254,922 52 ( - )
West Virginia Charleston 1.614% 1,937 30 (1 ↑) 1.614% 19,369 32 (1 ↑) 1.614% 484,234 33 (1 ↑)
Wisconsin Milwaukee 2.694% 3,233 11 (1 ↓) 2.751% 33,014 13 (3 ↓) 2.757% 827,165 13 (3 ↓) X
Wyoming Cheyenne 0.611% 733 53 ( - ) 0.611% 7,328 53 ( - ) 0.611% 183,196 53 ( - )
AVERAGE 1.994% 2,393 2.055% 24,654 2.090% 627,074 N = 11 N = 26

* Illinois and New York have two cities included in this table, because the tax systems in Chicago and New York City are significantly different from the rest of the state.
$100,000-valued property has an additional $20,000 worth of fixtures; $1 million -valued property has an additional $200,000 worth of fixtures; $25 million -valued property has an
additional $5 million worth of fixtures.
** Charleston, SC is now the largest city in the state and replaces Columbia, SC.

75
 Appendix Table 3b: Commercial Property Taxes for the Largest Fifty U.S. Cities
Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Tax Rate Lower Tax
$100,000 $1 Million $25 Million Varies with Rate on
Property Personal
State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank
Value Property
Arizona Mesa 1.540% 1,848 29 (4 ↑) 1.616% 19,388 30 (3 ↑) 1.901% 570,439 27 (3 ↑) X X
Arizona Phoenix 2.091% 2,509 21 (2 ↓) 2.198% 26,374 20 (2 ↓) 2.603% 780,772 14 (2 ↓) X X
Arizona Tucson 2.233% 2,679 19 (3 ↑) 2.333% 27,991 18 (2 ↑) 2.710% 813,095 12 (1 ↑) X X
California Fresno 1.247% 1,497 38 (1 ↑) 1.247% 14,967 39 (1 ↑) 1.247% 374,171 39 (1 ↑)
California Long Beach 1.218% 1,462 39 (4 ↑) 1.218% 14,621 40 (4 ↑) 1.218% 365,526 40 (4 ↑)
California Los Angeles 1.193% 1,432 41 (1 ↓) 1.193% 14,316 42 (1 ↓) 1.193% 357,908 42 (1 ↓)
California Oakland 1.349% 1,618 33 (1 ↑) 1.349% 16,183 34 (1 ↑) 1.349% 404,580 35 (1 ↑)
California Sacramento 1.137% 1,364 46 ( - ) 1.137% 13,638 46 (1 ↑) 1.137% 340,950 46 (1 ↑)
California San Diego 1.170% 1,404 43 (1 ↓) 1.170% 14,036 44 (1 ↓) 1.170% 350,901 44 (1 ↓)
California San Francisco 1.172% 1,407 42 (1 ↓) 1.172% 14,068 43 (1 ↓) 1.172% 351,690 43 (1 ↓)
California San Jose 1.317% 1,580 34 (4 ↑) 1.317% 15,805 35 (4 ↑) 1.317% 395,118 36 (3 ↑)
Colorado Colorado Springs 1.632% 1,959 26 (1 ↑) 1.632% 19,586 29 (1 ↑) 1.632% 489,654 31 (1 ↑)
Colorado Denver 2.312% 2,774 17 (1 ↑) 2.312% 27,740 19 ( - ) 2.312% 693,496 20 ( - )
DC Washington 1.299% 1,559 36 (1 ↑) 1.299% 15,593 37 (1 ↑) 1.978% 593,413 25 ( - ) X X
Florida Jacksonville 1.428% 1,713 32 ( - ) 1.683% 20,197 28 ( - ) 1.718% 515,435 30 (2 ↓) X X
Florida Miami 1.581% 1,897 28 ( - ) 1.878% 22,533 25 (1 ↑) 1.918% 575,532 26 ( - ) X X
Georgia Atlanta 1.585% 1,903 27 (1 ↓) 1.585% 19,025 31 (2 ↓) 1.585% 475,630 32 (1 ↓)
Illinois Chicago 3.784% 4,541 3(-) 3.784% 45,405 3(-) 3.784% 1,135,136 3(-) X
Indiana Indianapolis 2.458% 2,950 14 (10 ↓) 2.458% 29,497 15 (9 ↓) 2.458% 737,435 17 (11 ↓)
Kansas Wichita 2.683% 3,220 11 (2 ↓) 2.683% 32,197 12 (2 ↓) 2.683% 804,923 13 (3 ↓)
Kentucky Louisville 1.260% 1,512 37 (2 ↓) 1.260% 15,124 38 (2 ↓) 1.260% 378,094 38 (1 ↓)
Louisiana New Orleans 2.054% 2,465 22 (2 ↓) 2.054% 24,652 23 (2 ↓) 2.054% 616,293 24 (3 ↓)
Maryland Baltimore 2.781% 3,337 7 (3 ↑) 2.781% 33,372 8 (3 ↑) 2.781% 834,311 8 (3 ↑)
Massachusetts Boston 1.818% 2,182 24 (1 ↓) 1.818% 21,818 26 (1 ↓) 1.818% 545,455 28 (1 ↓) X
Michigan Detroit 4.243% 5,091 1(-) 4.243% 50,914 1(-) 4.243% 1,272,858 1(-) X
Minnesota Minneapolis 2.255% 2,706 18 (3 ↓) 2.851% 34,208 5 (1 ↓) 2.952% 885,479 5 (1 ↓) X X
Missouri Kansas City 2.770% 3,324 8 (1 ↓) 2.770% 33,244 9 (1 ↓) 2.770% 831,099 9 (1 ↓) X
Nebraska Omaha 1.898% 2,278 23 (1 ↑) 2.067% 24,800 22 (1 ↑) 2.085% 625,394 23 (1 ↑) X X
Nevada Las Vegas 1.139% 1,367 45 ( - ) 1.139% 13,670 45 (1 ↑) 1.139% 341,752 45 (1 ↑)
New Mexico Albuquerque 1.494% 1,793 30 ( - ) 1.494% 17,928 32 ( - ) 1.494% 448,192 33 (1 ↑)
New York New York City 3.903% 4,684 2(-) 3.903% 46,840 2(-) 3.903% 1,170,997 2(-) X
North Carolina Charlotte 1.079% 1,295 47 (3 ↓) 1.079% 12,945 47 (2 ↓) 1.079% 323,632 47 (2 ↓)
North Carolina Raleigh 0.991% 1,189 48 (1 ↑) 0.991% 11,891 48 (1 ↑) 0.991% 297,266 48 (1 ↑)
Ohio Columbus 1.787% 2,144 25 ( - ) 1.787% 21,443 27 ( - ) 1.787% 536,087 29 ( - ) X
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 1.301% 1,561 35 (1 ↑) 1.301% 15,608 36 (1 ↑) 1.301% 390,207 37 (1 ↑)
AVERAGE 1.938% 2,326 1.988% 23,853 2.030% 608,971 N = 10 N = 18
76
 Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Tax Rate Lower Tax
$100,000 $1 Million $25 Million Varies with Rate on
Property Personal
State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank
Value Property
Oklahoma Tulsa 1.485% 1,782 31 ( - ) 1.485% 17,820 33 (1 ↑) 1.485% 445,510 34 (1 ↑) X
Oregon Portland 2.424% 2,909 15 (2 ↑) 2.424% 29,086 16 (1 ↑) 2.424% 727,154 18 (1 ↑)
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 1.143% 1,372 44 (3 ↑) 1.967% 23,599 24 ( - ) 2.125% 637,486 22 (1 ↑) X X
Tennessee Memphis 2.830% 3,395 5(-) 2.830% 33,954 6 (1 ↑) 2.830% 848,861 6 (1 ↑) X
Tennessee Nashville 1.209% 1,451 40 (11 ↓) 1.209% 14,513 41 (10 ↓) 1.209% 362,825 41 (8 ↓) X
Texas Arlington 2.590% 3,108 12 (2 ↑) 2.590% 31,082 13 (2 ↑) 2.590% 777,041 15 (2 ↑)
Texas Austin 2.129% 2,555 20 (1 ↑) 2.129% 25,549 21 (1 ↑) 2.129% 638,724 21 (1 ↑)
Texas Dallas 2.550% 3,060 13 (2 ↓) 2.550% 30,596 14 (2 ↓) 2.550% 764,904 16 (2 ↓)
Texas El Paso 2.964% 3,556 4 (8 ↑) 2.964% 35,562 4 (9 ↑) 2.964% 889,052 4 (11 ↑)
Texas Fort Worth 2.715% 3,258 9 (4 ↑) 2.715% 32,577 11 (3 ↑) 2.715% 814,423 11 (5 ↑)
Texas Houston 2.356% 2,827 16 ( - ) 2.356% 28,268 17 (1 ↓) 2.356% 706,695 19 (1 ↓)
Texas San Antonio 2.811% 3,374 6 (2 ↑) 2.811% 33,736 7 (2 ↑) 2.811% 843,404 7 (2 ↑)
Virginia Virginia Beach 0.958% 1,150 49 (1 ↓) 0.958% 11,499 49 (1 ↓) 0.958% 287,467 49 (1 ↓)
Washington Seattle 0.849% 1,019 50 ( - ) 0.850% 10,197 50 ( - ) 0.850% 254,922 50 ( - )
Wisconsin Milwaukee 2.694% 3,233 10 (4 ↓) 2.751% 33,014 10 (5 ↓) 2.757% 827,165 10 (5 ↓) X
AVERAGE 1.938% 2,326 1.988% 23,853 2.030% 608,971 N = 10 N = 18

$100,000-valued property has an additional $20,000 worth of fixtures; $1 million -valued property has an additional $200,000 worth of fixtures; $25 million-valued property has an
additional $5 million worth of fixtures.

77
 Appendix Table 3c: Commercial Property Taxes for Selected Rural Municipalities
Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Tax Rate Lower Tax
$100,000 $1 Million $25 Million Varies with Rate on
Property Personal
State Municipality Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank
Value Property
Alabama Monroeville 0.820% 984 45 ( - ) 0.820% 9,840 45 ( - ) 0.820% 246,000 45 ( - )
Alaska Ketchican 0.906% 1,087 44 ( - ) 1.076% 12,916 38 (4 ↑) 1.100% 329,911 38 ( - ) X X
Arizona Safford 1.572% 1,887 27 (8 ↑) 1.643% 19,720 25 (8 ↑) 1.912% 573,510 24 (4 ↑) X X
Arkansas Pocahontas 0.722% 866 48 (1 ↓) 0.722% 8,663 48 (1 ↓) 0.722% 216,581 48 (1 ↓)
California Yreka 1.057% 1,268 39 (1 ↓) 1.057% 12,682 40 (2 ↓) 1.057% 317,040 40 (1 ↓)
Colorado Walsenburg 2.175% 2,610 12 (5 ↑) 2.175% 26,097 15 (4 ↑) 2.175% 652,422 15 (4 ↑)
Connecticut Litchfield 1.588% 1,905 26 (2 ↓) 1.588% 19,053 29 (4 ↓) 1.588% 476,328 29 (4 ↓)
Delaware Georgetown 0.442% 531 50 ( - ) 0.442% 5,307 50 ( - ) 0.442% 132,666 50 ( - ) X
Florida Moore Haven 1.877% 2,252 22 (1 ↑) 2.205% 26,466 12 (1 ↓) 2.251% 675,163 11 ( - ) X X
Georgia Fitzgerald 1.800% 2,160 23 (3 ↑) 1.800% 21,605 24 (2 ↑) 1.800% 540,116 25 (1 ↑)
Hawaii Kauai 0.675% 810 49 ( - ) 0.675% 8,100 49 ( - ) 0.675% 202,500 49 ( - ) X
Idaho St. Anthony 1.488% 1,786 30 (4 ↑) 1.633% 19,602 26 (5 ↑) 1.773% 531,797 26 (4 ↑) X X
Illinois Galena 2.047% 2,456 18 (1 ↑) 2.047% 24,560 21 ( - ) 2.047% 614,012 21 ( - ) X
Indiana North Vernon 3.035% 3,642 2 (1 ↑) 3.035% 36,420 3 (1 ↑) 3.035% 910,500 3 (2 ↑)
Iowa Hampton 1.748% 2,097 24 (2 ↓) 2.475% 29,702 8 (1 ↓) 2.729% 818,622 7 (4 ↓) X X
Kansas Iola 3.961% 4,753 1(-) 3.961% 47,528 1(-) 3.961% 1,188,203 1(-)
Kentucky Morehead 1.143% 1,372 36 (5 ↑) 1.143% 13,722 36 (5 ↑) 1.143% 343,042 36 (6 ↑)
Louisiana Natchitoches 1.256% 1,507 33 (3 ↓) 1.256% 15,067 33 (3 ↓) 1.256% 376,678 33 (1 ↓)
Maine Rockland 2.228% 2,674 10 ( - ) 2.228% 26,736 11 (1 ↑) 2.228% 668,400 12 ( - )
Maryland Denton 2.058% 2,470 17 (3 ↑) 2.058% 24,699 20 (2 ↑) 2.058% 617,480 20 (3 ↑)
Massachusetts Adams 2.025% 2,430 19 (7 ↓) 2.025% 24,305 22 (8 ↓) 2.025% 607,613 22 (8 ↓) X
Michigan Manistique 2.934% 3,521 3 (1 ↓) 2.934% 35,210 4 (1 ↓) 2.934% 880,259 4(-) X
Minnesota Glencoe 2.607% 3,128 6(-) 3.310% 39,720 2(-) 3.429% 1,028,762 2(-) X X
Mississippi Philadelphia 2.104% 2,525 15 (1 ↓) 2.104% 25,250 18 (2 ↓) 2.104% 631,260 18 (2 ↓)
Missouri Boonville 2.105% 2,526 14 (1 ↑) 2.105% 25,260 17 ( - ) 2.105% 631,496 17 ( - ) X
Montana Glasgow 1.510% 1,812 29 (2 ↓) 1.610% 19,325 27 ( - ) 1.707% 511,967 27 ( - ) X X
Nebraska Sidney 2.020% 2,424 20 (5 ↑) 2.195% 26,334 13 (11 ↑) 2.213% 663,938 13 (9 ↑) X X
Nevada Fallon 1.272% 1,526 32 (1 ↓) 1.272% 15,262 32 ( - ) 1.272% 381,555 32 (1 ↑)
New Hampshire Lancaster 2.265% 2,718 9 (1 ↓) 2.265% 27,183 10 ( - ) 2.265% 679,572 10 ( - ) X
New Jersey Maurice River Twp 2.176% 2,611 11 (2 ↑) 2.176% 26,109 14 (1 ↑) 2.176% 652,716 14 (1 ↑) X
New Mexico Santa Rosa 1.016% 1,219 41 (1 ↓) 1.016% 12,191 42 (2 ↓) 1.016% 304,773 42 (1 ↓)
New York Warsaw 2.887% 3,464 4(-) 2.887% 34,643 5(-) 2.887% 866,064 5 (1 ↑) X
North Carolina Edenton 1.114% 1,337 37 ( - ) 1.114% 13,372 37 ( - ) 1.114% 334,294 37 ( - )
North Dakota Devils Lake 1.066% 1,279 38 (5 ↓) 1.066% 12,794 39 (4 ↓) 1.066% 319,856 39 (4 ↓) X
Ohio Bryan 1.552% 1,863 28 (1 ↑) 1.552% 18,628 30 (1 ↓) 1.552% 465,693 30 (1 ↑) X
AVERAGE 1.701% 2,042 1.751% 21,010 1.770% 531,061 N=9 N = 23
78
 Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Tax Rate Lower Tax
$100,000 $1 Million $25 Million Varies with Rate on
Property Personal
State Municipality Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank
Value Property
Oklahoma Mangum 0.913% 1,095 43 ( - ) 0.913% 10,953 44 ( - ) 0.913% 273,825 44 ( - )
Oregon Tillamook 1.167% 1,400 35 (1 ↑) 1.167% 13,998 35 (1 ↑) 1.167% 349,957 35 (1 ↑)
Pennsylvania Ridgway 2.490% 2,988 7(-) 2.490% 29,880 7 (2 ↑) 2.490% 746,992 8 (1 ↑) X
Rhode Island Hopkinton 1.988% 2,385 21 (5 ↓) 1.988% 23,854 23 (5 ↓) 1.988% 596,341 23 (5 ↓)
South Carolina Mullins 2.817% 3,381 5(-) 2.817% 33,807 6(-) 2.817% 845,175 6 (1 ↑)
South Dakota Vermillion 1.610% 1,932 25 (4 ↓) 1.610% 19,322 28 (5 ↓) 1.610% 483,043 28 (4 ↓) X
Tennessee Savannah 1.003% 1,203 42 ( - ) 1.003% 12,033 43 ( - ) 1.003% 300,824 43 ( - ) X
Texas Fort Stockton 2.141% 2,569 13 (2 ↓) 2.141% 25,689 16 (3 ↓) 2.141% 642,213 16 (3 ↓)
Utah Richfield 1.478% 1,774 31 (3 ↓) 1.478% 17,741 31 (3 ↓) 1.478% 443,520 31 (2 ↓)
Vermont Hartford 2.087% 2,504 16 (2 ↑) 2.087% 25,041 19 (1 ↑) 2.087% 626,018 19 (1 ↑) X
Virginia Wise 0.803% 964 46 ( - ) 0.803% 9,640 46 ( - ) 0.803% 241,005 46 ( - )
Washington Okanogan 1.208% 1,449 34 (2 ↓) 1.208% 14,494 34 ( - ) 1.208% 362,356 34 ( - )
West Virginia Elkins 1.036% 1,244 40 (1 ↓) 1.036% 12,438 41 (2 ↓) 1.036% 310,945 41 (1 ↓)
Wisconsin Rice Lake 2.297% 2,756 8 (1 ↑) 2.351% 28,218 9 (1 ↓) 2.357% 707,195 9 (1 ↓) X
Wyoming Worland 0.776% 931 47 (1 ↑) 0.776% 9,313 47 (1 ↑) 0.776% 232,835 47 (1 ↑)
AVERAGE 1.701% 2,042 1.751% 21,010 1.770% 531,061 N=9 N = 23

$100,000-valued property has an additional $20,000 worth of fixtures; $1 million -valued property has an additional $200,000 worth of fixtures; $25 million-valued property has an
additional $5 million worth of fixtures.

79
 Appendix Table 4a: Industrial Property Taxes for Largest City in Each State (Personal Property = 50% of Total Parcel Value)
Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Tax Rate
$100,000 $1 Million $25 Million Varies with
Property
State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank
Value
Alabama Birmingham 1.160% 2,320 34 (3 ↑) 1.160% 23,200 37 (3 ↑) 1.160% 580,000 38 (3 ↑)
Alaska Anchorage 1.347% 2,695 28 (3 ↑) 1.488% 29,768 24 (3 ↑) 1.503% 751,719 25 (3 ↑) X
Arizona Phoenix 1.254% 2,509 31 (1 ↓) 1.953% 39,062 13 (1 ↓) 2.196% 1,097,959 8 (2 ↑) X
Arkansas Little Rock 1.401% 2,802 26 (2 ↓) 1.401% 28,019 30 (2 ↓) 1.401% 700,474 30 (1 ↓)
California Los Angeles 0.954% 1,909 39 ( - ) 0.954% 19,088 42 ( - ) 0.954% 477,211 43 ( - )
Colorado Denver 1.860% 3,720 15 ( - ) 1.860% 37,199 16 (1 ↑) 1.860% 929,982 18 (1 ↑)
Connecticut Bridgeport 2.093% 4,186 10 ( - ) 2.093% 41,865 10 ( - ) 2.093% 1,046,623 11 ( - )
DC Washington 0.780% 1,559 43 (1 ↑) 1.417% 28,343 27 (3 ↑) 1.867% 933,413 17 (1 ↓) X
Delaware Wilmington 0.641% 1,282 49 (1 ↓) 0.641% 12,821 50 (1 ↓) 0.641% 320,521 50 (1 ↓)
Florida Jacksonville 1.163% 2,326 33 ( - ) 1.360% 27,198 32 (1 ↓) 1.381% 690,456 32 (2 ↓) X
Georgia Atlanta 1.471% 2,941 21 ( - ) 1.471% 29,414 25 (1 ↓) 1.471% 735,350 26 (1 ↓)
Hawaii Honolulu 0.597% 1,194 51 ( - ) 0.597% 11,937 51 (1 ↑) 0.597% 298,437 51 (1 ↑)
Idaho Boise 0.771% 1,543 44 (1 ↓) 1.174% 23,487 36 (1 ↓) 1.252% 625,839 36 (1 ↓) X
Illinois Aurora* 2.059% 4,118 11 ( - ) 2.059% 41,180 11 ( - ) 2.059% 1,029,496 12 ( - )
Illinois Chicago 2.266% 4,533 6 (7 ↑) 2.266% 45,325 7 (7 ↑) 2.266% 1,133,133 7 (8 ↑)
Indiana Indianapolis 1.997% 3,995 12 (5 ↓) 1.997% 39,948 12 (5 ↓) 1.997% 998,705 13 (6 ↓)
Iowa Des Moines 1.295% 2,591 30 (3 ↓) 1.732% 34,639 18 (2 ↓) 1.884% 942,044 16 (3 ↓) X
Kansas Wichita 1.463% 2,926 22 (1 ↑) 1.463% 29,265 26 ( - ) 1.463% 731,615 27 ( - )
Kentucky Louisville 0.709% 1,419 45 ( - ) 0.709% 14,188 47 ( - ) 0.709% 354,694 47 ( - )
Louisiana New Orleans 2.103% 4,205 9 (1 ↓) 2.103% 42,053 9 (1 ↓) 2.103% 1,051,323 10 (2 ↓)
Maine Portland 1.126% 2,252 36 ( - ) 1.126% 22,516 39 ( - ) 1.126% 562,900 40 ( - )
Maryland Baltimore 1.389% 2,778 27 (2 ↑) 1.389% 27,781 31 (2 ↑) 1.389% 694,514 31 (2 ↑)
Massachusetts Boston 1.104% 2,207 38 (3 ↓) 1.104% 22,072 41 (3 ↓) 1.104% 551,798 42 (3 ↓)
Michigan Detroit 2.248% 4,497 7 (2 ↓) 2.729% 54,582 2(-) 2.729% 1,364,545 2(-) X
Minnesota Minneapolis 1.417% 2,834 23 (3 ↑) 1.791% 35,823 17 (1 ↑) 1.855% 927,275 19 (1 ↓) X
Mississippi Jackson 2.841% 5,683 1 (1 ↑) 2.841% 56,826 1 (2 ↑) 2.841% 1,420,650 1 (2 ↑)
Missouri Kansas City 2.193% 4,386 8 (1 ↑) 2.193% 43,857 8 (1 ↑) 2.193% 1,096,432 9(-)
Montana Billings 0.629% 1,258 50 (2 ↑) 0.894% 17,875 45 (1 ↑) 1.260% 629,954 35 (2 ↑) X
Nebraska Omaha 1.589% 3,177 18 ( - ) 1.690% 33,795 19 ( - ) 1.701% 850,266 20 ( - ) X
Nevada Las Vegas 0.913% 1,826 40 (1 ↑) 0.913% 18,260 43 (1 ↑) 0.913% 456,489 44 (1 ↑)
New Hampshire Manchester 1.129% 2,257 35 (3 ↑) 1.129% 22,574 38 (3 ↑) 1.129% 564,344 39 (3 ↑)
New Jersey Newark 1.582% 3,163 19 (2 ↓) 1.582% 31,634 22 (1 ↓) 1.582% 790,854 23 (1 ↓)
New Mexico Albuquerque 1.209% 2,417 32 ( - ) 1.209% 24,172 34 ( - ) 1.209% 604,302 37 (1 ↓)
New York Buffalo* 1.411% 2,822 24 (2 ↓) 1.411% 28,224 28 (3 ↓) 1.411% 705,609 28 (2 ↓)
New York New York City 2.342% 4,684 4 (2 ↑) 2.342% 46,840 5 (1 ↑) 2.342% 1,170,997 5 (1 ↑)
AVERAGE 1.419% 2,838 1.499% 29,984 1.527% 763,726 N = 12
80
 Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Tax Rate
$100,000 $1 Million $25 Million Varies with
Property
State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank
Value
North Carolina Charlotte 0.906% 1,812 41 (1 ↓) 0.906% 18,123 44 (1 ↓) 0.906% 453,072 45 (1 ↓)
North Dakota Fargo 0.575% 1,150 52 (2 ↓) 0.575% 11,500 52 (1 ↓) 0.575% 287,488 52 (1 ↓)
Ohio Columbus 1.303% 2,606 29 (1 ↓) 1.303% 26,062 33 (1 ↓) 1.303% 651,547 33 (1 ↓)
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 1.404% 2,808 25 ( - ) 1.404% 28,077 29 ( - ) 1.404% 701,920 29 (2 ↑)
Oregon Portland 1.939% 3,878 13 (1 ↑) 1.939% 38,782 14 (1 ↑) 1.939% 969,538 14 (3 ↑)
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 0.686% 1,372 47 ( - ) 1.180% 23,599 35 (2 ↑) 1.275% 637,486 34 ( - ) X
Rhode Island Providence 1.931% 3,862 14 (2 ↓) 1.931% 38,617 15 (2 ↓) 1.931% 965,434 15 (1 ↓)
South Carolina Charleston** 2.283% 4,567 5 (NA 2.283% 45,669 6 (NA) 2.283% 1,141,720 6 (NA)
South Dakota Sioux Falls 0.871% 1,743 42 ( - ) 0.871% 17,428 46 (1 ↓) 0.871% 435,691 46 ( - )
Tennessee Memphis 2.583% 5,167 2 (1 ↑) 2.583% 51,670 3 (1 ↑) 2.583% 1,291,745 3 (1 ↑)
Texas Houston 2.526% 5,053 3 (1 ↑) 2.526% 50,527 4 (1 ↑) 2.526% 1,263,174 4 (1 ↑)
Utah Salt Lake City 1.117% 2,234 37 (3 ↓) 1.117% 22,336 40 (4 ↓) 1.117% 558,404 41 (3 ↓)
Vermont Burlington 1.601% 3,202 17 (2 ↑) 1.601% 32,023 21 (1 ↑) 1.601% 800,572 22 (1 ↑)
Virginia Virginia Beach 0.495% 990 53 ( - ) 0.495% 9,899 53 ( - ) 0.495% 247,468 53 ( - )
Washington Seattle 0.692% 1,383 46 ( - ) 0.692% 13,833 48 ( - ) 0.692% 345,830 48 ( - )
West Virginia Charleston 1.633% 3,265 16 ( - ) 1.633% 32,651 20 ( - ) 1.633% 816,280 21 ( - )
Wisconsin Milwaukee 1.479% 2,958 20 ( - ) 1.513% 30,257 23 ( - ) 1.516% 758,229 24 ( - ) X
Wyoming Cheyenne 0.664% 1,328 48 (1 ↑) 0.664% 13,279 49 (1 ↑) 0.664% 331,982 49 (1 ↑)
AVERAGE 1.419% 2,838 1.499% 29,984 1.527% 763,726 N = 12

* Illinois and New York have two cities included in this table, because the tax systems in Chicago and New York City are sign ificantly different from the rest of the state.
** Charleston, SC is now the largest city in the state and replaces Columbia, SC.
$100,000-valued property has an additional $50,000 worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $40,000 worth of inventories, and a n additional $10,000 worth of fixtures.
$1 million-valued property has an additional $500,000 worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $400,000 worth of inventories, and an additional $100,000 worth of
fixtures.
$25 million-valued property has an additional $12.5 million worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $10 million worth of inventories, and an additional $2. 5 million
worth of fixtures.

81
 Appendix Table 4b: Industrial Property Taxes for Largest City in Each State (Personal Property = 60 % of Total Parcel Value)
Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Tax Rate
$100,000 $1 Million $25 Million Varies with
Property
State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank
Value
Alabama Birmingham 1.102% 2,755 31 (1 ↑) 1.102% 27,550 35 (1 ↑) 1.102% 688,750 36 (1 ↑)
Alaska Anchorage 1.391% 3,478 22 ( - ) 1.504% 37,598 20 (2 ↑) 1.516% 947,469 20 (3 ↑) X
Arizona Phoenix 1.004% 2,509 35 ( - ) 1.943% 48,577 8 (1 ↑) 2.137% 1,335,849 6 (2 ↑) X
Arkansas Little Rock 1.401% 3,503 20 ( - ) 1.401% 35,029 24 ( - ) 1.401% 875,724 25 ( - )
California Los Angeles 0.907% 2,267 37 (2 ↑) 0.907% 22,668 40 (2 ↑) 0.907% 566,688 41 (2 ↑)
Colorado Denver 1.772% 4,429 12 ( - ) 1.772% 44,294 13 ( - ) 1.772% 1,107,347 14 ( - )
Connecticut Bridgeport 1.751% 4,377 13 (3 ↓) 1.751% 43,768 14 (3 ↓) 1.751% 1,094,196 15 (3 ↓)
DC Washington 0.624% 1,559 46 (1 ↑) 1.542% 38,543 19 ( - ) 1.901% 1,188,413 10 ( - ) X
Delaware Wilmington 0.513% 1,282 49 ( - ) 0.513% 12,821 50 ( - ) 0.513% 320,521 50 ( - )
Florida Jacksonville 1.140% 2,851 28 ( - ) 1.298% 32,449 27 ( - ) 1.315% 821,721 27 ( - ) X
Georgia Atlanta 1.453% 3,634 18 ( - ) 1.453% 36,336 21 (1 ↓) 1.453% 908,400 23 (2 ↓)
Hawaii Honolulu 0.477% 1,194 51 ( - ) 0.477% 11,937 51 (1 ↑) 0.477% 298,437 51 (1 ↑)
Idaho Boise 0.617% 1,543 47 (1 ↓) 1.133% 28,321 33 (1 ↑) 1.195% 746,696 33 (2 ↓) X
Illinois Aurora* 1.647% 4,118 15 ( - ) 1.647% 41,180 16 ( - ) 1.647% 1,029,496 17 ( - )
Illinois Chicago 1.813% 4,533 11 (6 ↑) 1.813% 45,325 12 (6 ↑) 1.813% 1,133,133 13 (7 ↑)
Indiana Indianapolis 1.911% 4,779 7 (1 ↓) 1.911% 47,786 9 (2 ↓) 1.911% 1,194,657 9 (2 ↓)
Iowa Des Moines 1.036% 2,591 34 (1 ↓) 1.386% 34,639 26 (5 ↓) 1.507% 942,044 21 (2 ↓) X
Kansas Wichita 1.229% 3,073 25 ( - ) 1.229% 30,731 30 ( - ) 1.229% 768,269 31 (1 ↓)
Kentucky Louisville 0.624% 1,561 45 (1 ↓) 0.624% 15,606 49 (1 ↓) 0.624% 390,144 49 (1 ↓)
Louisiana New Orleans 2.117% 5,293 5(-) 2.117% 52,929 6(-) 2.117% 1,323,216 7 (1 ↓)
Maine Portland 0.944% 2,360 36 ( - ) 0.944% 23,599 39 (1 ↓) 0.944% 589,963 40 ( - )
Maryland Baltimore 1.223% 3,058 26 (1 ↑) 1.223% 30,577 31 (1 ↑) 1.223% 764,413 32 (2 ↑)
Massachusetts Boston 0.883% 2,207 39 (2 ↓) 0.883% 22,072 42 (2 ↓) 0.883% 551,798 43 (2 ↓)
Michigan Detroit 1.863% 4,657 9 (1 ↓) 2.440% 60,991 4 (1 ↓) 2.440% 1,524,771 4 (1 ↓) X
Minnesota Minneapolis 1.134% 2,834 29 (2 ↑) 1.433% 35,823 23 (2 ↑) 1.484% 927,275 22 ( - ) X
Mississippi Jackson 2.841% 7,103 1 (1 ↑) 2.841% 71,033 1 (1 ↑) 2.841% 1,775,813 1 (1 ↑)
Missouri Kansas City 2.073% 5,182 6 (1 ↑) 2.073% 51,817 7 (1 ↑) 2.073% 1,295,432 8 (1 ↑)
Montana Billings 0.503% 1,258 50 (3 ↑) 0.842% 21,050 45 ( - ) 1.262% 788,695 30 (3 ↑) X
Nebraska Omaha 1.541% 3,852 17 (1 ↓) 1.622% 40,541 18 (1 ↓) 1.630% 1,018,920 19 (1 ↓) X
Nevada Las Vegas 0.868% 2,170 41 ( - ) 0.868% 21,702 44 ( - ) 0.868% 542,542 45 ( - )
New Hampshire Manchester 0.903% 2,257 38 (2 ↑) 0.903% 22,574 41 (2 ↑) 0.903% 564,344 42 (2 ↑)
New Jersey Newark 1.265% 3,163 23 (1 ↑) 1.265% 31,634 29 ( - ) 1.265% 790,854 29 ( - )
New Mexico Albuquerque 1.154% 2,886 27 (2 ↑) 1.154% 28,855 32 (1 ↑) 1.154% 721,384 34 (1 ↑)
New York Buffalo* 1.129% 2,822 30 (4 ↓) 1.129% 28,224 34 (3 ↓) 1.129% 705,609 35 (3 ↓)
New York New York City 1.874% 4,684 8 (1 ↑) 1.874% 46,840 10 ( - ) 1.874% 1,170,997 11 ( - )
AVERAGE 1.275% 3,186 1.363% 34,087 1.388% 867,793 N = 12
82
 Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Tax Rate
$100,000 $1 Million $25 Million Varies with
Property
State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank
Value
North Carolina Charlotte 0.880% 2,201 40 (2 ↓) 0.880% 22,006 43 (2 ↓) 0.880% 550,152 44 (2 ↓)
North Dakota Fargo 0.460% 1,150 52 (2 ↓) 0.460% 11,500 52 (1 ↓) 0.460% 287,488 52 (1 ↓)
Ohio Columbus 1.042% 2,606 33 (1 ↑) 1.042% 26,062 37 ( - ) 1.042% 651,547 38 ( - )
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 1.435% 3,587 19 ( - ) 1.435% 35,870 22 (1 ↑) 1.435% 896,740 24 ( - )
Oregon Portland 1.842% 4,605 10 (1 ↑) 1.842% 46,053 11 (1 ↑) 1.842% 1,151,327 12 (1 ↑)
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 0.549% 1,372 48 ( - ) 0.944% 23,599 38 (1 ↑) 1.020% 637,486 39 ( - ) X
Rhode Island Providence 1.656% 4,141 14 (1 ↓) 1.656% 41,407 15 (1 ↓) 1.656% 1,035,184 16 (1 ↓)
South Carolina Charleston** 2.169% 5,423 4 (NA) 2.169% 54,232 5 (NA) 2.169% 1,355,793 5 (NA)
South Dakota Sioux Falls 0.697% 1,743 42 (1 ↑) 0.697% 17,428 46 (1 ↑) 0.697% 435,691 46 (1 ↑)
Tennessee Memphis 2.510% 6,274 3(-) 2.510% 62,742 3 (1 ↑) 2.510% 1,568,548 3 (1 ↑)
Texas Houston 2.526% 6,316 2 (2 ↑) 2.526% 63,159 2 (3 ↑) 2.526% 1,578,968 2 (3 ↑)
Utah Salt Lake City 1.064% 2,661 32 (2 ↓) 1.064% 26,610 36 (1 ↓) 1.064% 665,242 37 (1 ↓)
Vermont Burlington 1.396% 3,491 21 ( - ) 1.396% 34,907 25 (1 ↑) 1.396% 872,671 26 ( - )
Virginia Virginia Beach 0.428% 1,070 53 (1 ↓) 0.428% 10,699 53 ( - ) 0.428% 267,468 53 ( - )
Washington Seattle 0.662% 1,656 43 (1 ↓) 0.662% 16,560 47 (1 ↓) 0.662% 414,011 47 (1 ↓)
West Virginia Charleston 1.638% 4,095 16 (2 ↓) 1.638% 40,952 17 (2 ↓) 1.638% 1,023,809 18 (2 ↓)
Wisconsin Milwaukee 1.238% 3,095 24 (1 ↓) 1.265% 31,635 28 ( - ) 1.268% 792,697 28 ( - ) X
Wyoming Cheyenne 0.631% 1,577 44 (1 ↑) 0.631% 15,769 48 (1 ↑) 0.631% 394,229 48 (1 ↑)
AVERAGE 1.275% 3,186 1.363% 34,087 1.388% 867,793 N = 12

* Illinois and New York have two cities included in this table, because the tax systems in Chicago and New York City are sign ificantly different from the rest of the state.
** Charleston, SC is now the largest city in the state and replaces Columbia, SC.
$100,000-valued property has an additional $75,000 worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $60,000 worth of inventories, and a n additional $15,000 worth of fixtures.
$1 million-valued property has an additional $750,000 worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $600,000 worth of inventories, and an additional $150,000 worth of
fixtures.
$25 million-valued property has an additional $18.75 million worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $15 million worth of inventories, and an additional $3 .75 million
worth of fixtures.

83
 Appendix Table 4c: Industrial Property Taxes for the Largest Fifty U.S. Cities (Personal Propert y = 50% of Total Parcel Value)
Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Tax Rate
$100,000 $1 Million $25 Million Varies with
Property
State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank
Value
Arizona Mesa 0.924% 1,848 41 (3 ↑) 1.417% 28,348 26 (4 ↑) 1.589% 794,444 22 (3 ↑) X
Arizona Phoenix 1.254% 2,509 28 (1 ↑) 1.953% 39,062 16 (2 ↓) 2.196% 1,097,959 13 (1 ↑) X
Arizona Tucson 1.340% 2,679 25 (5 ↑) 1.992% 39,833 15 (1 ↑) 2.218% 1,109,138 11 (4 ↑) X
California Fresno 0.998% 1,996 36 ( - ) 0.998% 19,956 39 ( - ) 0.998% 498,894 39 ( - )
California Long Beach 0.975% 1,949 37 (4 ↑) 0.975% 19,495 40 (4 ↑) 0.975% 487,368 40 (4 ↑)
California Los Angeles 0.954% 1,909 38 (1 ↓) 0.954% 19,088 41 (1 ↓) 0.954% 477,211 41 (1 ↓)
California Oakland 1.079% 2,158 34 ( - ) 1.079% 21,578 37 ( - ) 1.079% 539,440 37 ( - )
California Sacramento 0.909% 1,818 43 ( - ) 0.909% 18,184 45 (1 ↑) 0.909% 454,600 45 (1 ↑)
California San Diego 0.936% 1,871 40 ( - ) 0.936% 18,715 43 ( - ) 0.936% 467,868 43 ( - )
California San Francisco 0.938% 1,876 39 ( - ) 0.938% 18,757 42 ( - ) 0.938% 468,920 42 ( - )
California San Jose 1.054% 2,107 35 ( - ) 1.054% 21,073 38 ( - ) 1.054% 526,824 38 ( - )
Colorado Colorado Springs 1.316% 2,631 26 (2 ↑) 1.316% 26,311 31 (2 ↑) 1.316% 657,776 31 (2 ↑)
Colorado Denver 1.860% 3,720 16 ( - ) 1.860% 37,199 18 ( - ) 1.860% 929,982 19 (1 ↑)
DC Washington 0.780% 1,559 46 ( - ) 1.417% 28,343 27 (1 ↑) 1.867% 933,413 18 (1 ↓) X
Florida Jacksonville 1.163% 2,326 30 (2 ↑) 1.360% 27,198 30 (1 ↓) 1.381% 690,456 30 (1 ↓) X
Florida Miami 1.305% 2,609 27 ( - ) 1.533% 30,668 21 (1 ↑) 1.558% 778,901 23 (1 ↓) X
Georgia Atlanta 1.471% 2,941 19 ( - ) 1.471% 29,414 23 ( - ) 1.471% 735,350 25 (1 ↓)
Illinois Chicago 2.266% 4,533 9 (5 ↑) 2.266% 45,325 10 (5 ↑) 2.266% 1,133,133 10 (6 ↑)
Indiana Indianapolis 1.997% 3,995 14 (4 ↓) 1.997% 39,948 14 (4 ↓) 1.997% 998,705 16 (6 ↓)
Kansas Wichita 1.463% 2,926 20 ( - ) 1.463% 29,265 24 ( - ) 1.463% 731,615 26 ( - )
Kentucky Louisville 0.709% 1,419 47 ( - ) 0.709% 14,188 48 ( - ) 0.709% 354,694 48 ( - )
Louisiana New Orleans 2.103% 4,205 13 (1 ↓) 2.103% 42,053 13 (1 ↓) 2.103% 1,051,323 15 (3 ↓)
Maryland Baltimore 1.389% 2,778 24 (2 ↑) 1.389% 27,781 29 (3 ↑) 1.389% 694,514 29 (3 ↑)
Massachusetts Boston 1.104% 2,207 32 (1 ↑) 1.104% 22,072 35 (1 ↑) 1.104% 551,798 35 (1 ↑)
Michigan Detroit 2.248% 4,497 10 (2 ↓) 2.729% 54,582 4 (3 ↓) 2.729% 1,364,545 4 (3 ↓) X
Minnesota Minneapolis 1.417% 2,834 22 (2 ↑) 1.791% 35,823 19 ( - ) 1.855% 927,275 20 (1 ↓) X
Missouri Kansas City 2.193% 4,386 12 (1 ↑) 2.193% 43,857 12 (1 ↑) 2.193% 1,096,432 14 (1 ↓)
Nebraska Omaha 1.589% 3,177 17 ( - ) 1.690% 33,795 20 ( - ) 1.701% 850,266 21 ( - ) X
Nevada Las Vegas 0.913% 1,826 42 ( - ) 0.913% 18,260 44 (1 ↑) 0.913% 456,489 44 (1 ↑)
New Mexico Albuquerque 1.209% 2,417 29 (2 ↑) 1.209% 24,172 32 (2 ↑) 1.209% 604,302 33 (2 ↑)
New York New York City 2.342% 4,684 8 (1 ↑) 2.342% 46,840 9(-) 2.342% 1,170,997 9(-)
North Carolina Charlotte 0.906% 1,812 44 (6 ↓) 0.906% 18,123 46 (5 ↓) 0.906% 453,072 46 (5 ↓)
North Carolina Raleigh 0.803% 1,605 45 ( - ) 0.803% 16,052 47 ( - ) 0.803% 401,296 47 ( - )
Ohio Columbus 1.082% 2,165 33 (8 ↓) 1.082% 21,648 36 (5 ↓) 1.082% 541,212 36 (5 ↓)
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 1.404% 2,808 23 ( - ) 1.404% 28,077 28 (1 ↓) 1.404% 701,920 28 (2 ↑)
AVERAGE 1.509% 3,018 1.597% 31,936 1.623% 811,478 N = 11
84
 Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Tax Rate
$100,000 $1 Million $25 Million Varies with
Property
State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank
Value
Oklahoma Tulsa 1.439% 2,879 21 (1 ↑) 1.439% 28,787 25 (1 ↑) 1.439% 719,670 27 (1 ↑)
Oregon Portland 1.939% 3,878 15 ( - ) 1.939% 38,782 17 ( - ) 1.939% 969,538 17 (1 ↑)
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 0.686% 1,372 49 ( - ) 1.180% 23,599 33 (2 ↑) 1.275% 637,486 32 (2 ↑) X
Tennessee Memphis 2.583% 5,167 6(-) 2.583% 51,670 7(-) 2.583% 1,291,745 7(-)
Tennessee Nashville 1.104% 2,209 31 (10 ↓) 1.104% 22,085 34 (9 ↓) 1.104% 552,125 34 (7 ↓)
Texas Arlington 2.617% 5,234 5(-) 2.617% 52,339 6(-) 2.617% 1,308,480 6(-)
Texas Austin 2.214% 4,428 11 ( - ) 2.214% 44,280 11 ( - ) 2.214% 1,106,993 12 (1 ↓)
Texas Dallas 2.719% 5,438 4(-) 2.719% 54,384 5(-) 2.719% 1,359,612 5(-)
Texas El Paso 2.960% 5,919 1 (1 ↑) 2.960% 59,194 1 (2 ↑) 2.960% 1,479,854 1 (2 ↑)
Texas Fort Worth 2.765% 5,531 3(-) 2.765% 55,310 3 (1 ↑) 2.765% 1,382,745 3 (1 ↑)
Texas Houston 2.526% 5,053 7(-) 2.526% 50,527 8(-) 2.526% 1,263,174 8(-)
Texas San Antonio 2.838% 5,675 2 (1 ↓) 2.838% 56,753 2(-) 2.838% 1,418,821 2(-)
Virginia Virginia Beach 0.495% 990 50 ( - ) 0.495% 9,899 50 ( - ) 0.495% 247,468 50 ( - )
Washington Seattle 0.692% 1,383 48 ( - ) 0.692% 13,833 49 ( - ) 0.692% 345,830 49 ( - )
Wisconsin Milwaukee 1.479% 2,958 18 ( - ) 1.513% 30,257 22 (1 ↓) 1.516% 758,229 24 (1 ↓) X
AVERAGE 1.509% 3,018 1.597% 31,936 1.623% 811,478 N = 11

$100,000-valued property has an additional $50,000 worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $40,000 worth of inventories, and a n additional $10,000 worth of fixtures.
$1 million-valued property has an additional $500,000 worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $400,000 worth of inventories, and an additional $100,000 worth of
fixtures.
$25 million-valued property has an additional $12.5 million worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $10 million worth of inventories, and an additional $2.5 mill ion
worth of fixtures.

85
 Appendix Table 4d: Industrial Property Taxes for the Largest Fifty U.S. Cities (Personal Property = 60% of Total Parcel Value)
Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Tax Rate
$100,000 $1 Million $25 Million Varies with
Property
State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank
Value
Arizona Mesa 0.739% 1,848 45 (2 ↑) 1.403% 35,068 26 (1 ↑) 1.540% 962,447 21 (2 ↑) X
Arizona Phoenix 1.004% 2,509 32 (1 ↓) 1.943% 48,577 13 ( - ) 2.137% 1,335,849 10 (2 ↑) X
Arizona Tucson 1.072% 2,679 30 (3 ↑) 1.949% 48,714 12 (2 ↑) 2.130% 1,331,170 11 (3 ↑) X
California Fresno 0.948% 2,370 34 (1 ↑) 0.948% 23,697 36 (2 ↑) 0.948% 592,437 37 (1 ↑)
California Long Beach 0.926% 2,315 35 (6 ↑) 0.926% 23,150 38 (6 ↑) 0.926% 578,750 38 (6 ↑)
California Los Angeles 0.907% 2,267 36 (2 ↑) 0.907% 22,668 39 (2 ↑) 0.907% 566,688 39 (2 ↑)
California Oakland 1.025% 2,562 31 (1 ↑) 1.025% 25,623 34 (1 ↑) 1.025% 640,585 34 (1 ↑)
California Sacramento 0.864% 2,159 43 ( - ) 0.864% 21,594 46 ( - ) 0.864% 539,838 46 ( - )
California San Diego 0.889% 2,222 38 (2 ↑) 0.889% 22,224 41 (2 ↑) 0.889% 555,593 41 (2 ↑)
California San Francisco 0.891% 2,227 37 (2 ↑) 0.891% 22,274 40 (2 ↑) 0.891% 556,843 40 (2 ↑)
California San Jose 1.001% 2,502 33 (1 ↑) 1.001% 25,024 35 (1 ↑) 1.001% 625,604 36 (1 ↑)
Colorado Colorado Springs 1.254% 3,135 22 (2 ↑) 1.254% 31,355 29 (1 ↑) 1.254% 783,867 29 (1 ↑)
Colorado Denver 1.772% 4,429 16 (1 ↓) 1.772% 44,294 18 (1 ↓) 1.772% 1,107,347 19 (1 ↓)
DC Washington 0.624% 1,559 48 ( - ) 1.542% 38,543 20 ( - ) 1.901% 1,188,413 15 ( - ) X
Florida Jacksonville 1.140% 2,851 27 ( - ) 1.298% 32,449 27 (1 ↑) 1.315% 821,721 27 (1 ↑) X
Florida Miami 1.288% 3,219 21 (1 ↑) 1.471% 36,769 21 ( - ) 1.490% 931,427 22 (1 ↓) X
Georgia Atlanta 1.453% 3,634 18 ( - ) 1.453% 36,336 22 ( - ) 1.453% 908,400 24 (2 ↓)
Illinois Chicago 1.813% 4,533 15 (2 ↑) 1.813% 45,325 17 (2 ↑) 1.813% 1,133,133 18 (2 ↑)
Indiana Indianapolis 1.911% 4,779 11 (1 ↓) 1.911% 47,786 14 (3 ↓) 1.911% 1,194,657 14 (3 ↓)
Kansas Wichita 1.229% 3,073 24 (1 ↑) 1.229% 30,731 30 (1 ↑) 1.229% 768,269 30 (1 ↑)
Kentucky Louisville 0.624% 1,561 47 (1 ↓) 0.624% 15,606 49 ( - ) 0.624% 390,144 49 ( - )
Louisiana New Orleans 2.117% 5,293 9(-) 2.117% 52,929 10 ( - ) 2.117% 1,323,216 12 (2 ↓)
Maryland Baltimore 1.223% 3,058 25 (1 ↑) 1.223% 30,577 31 (1 ↑) 1.223% 764,413 31 (1 ↑)
Massachusetts Boston 0.883% 2,207 39 (3 ↓) 0.883% 22,072 42 (3 ↓) 0.883% 551,798 42 (3 ↓)
Michigan Detroit 1.863% 4,657 13 (1 ↓) 2.440% 60,991 8 (3 ↓) 2.440% 1,524,771 8 (3 ↓) X
Minnesota Minneapolis 1.134% 2,834 28 (1 ↑) 1.433% 35,823 24 (1 ↑) 1.484% 927,275 23 (1 ↑) X
Missouri Kansas City 2.073% 5,182 10 (1 ↑) 2.073% 51,817 11 (1 ↑) 2.073% 1,295,432 13 ( - )
Nebraska Omaha 1.541% 3,852 17 (1 ↓) 1.622% 40,541 19 (1 ↓) 1.630% 1,018,920 20 (1 ↓) X
Nevada Las Vegas 0.868% 2,170 41 (1 ↑) 0.868% 21,702 44 (1 ↑) 0.868% 542,542 44 (1 ↑)
New Mexico Albuquerque 1.154% 2,886 26 (2 ↑) 1.154% 28,855 32 (1 ↑) 1.154% 721,384 32 (1 ↑)
New York New York City 1.874% 4,684 12 (1 ↑) 1.874% 46,840 15 ( - ) 1.874% 1,170,997 16 ( - )
North Carolina Charlotte 0.880% 2,201 40 (3 ↓) 0.880% 22,006 43 (3 ↓) 0.880% 550,152 43 (3 ↓)
North Carolina Raleigh 0.767% 1,917 44 ( - ) 0.767% 19,173 47 ( - ) 0.767% 479,318 47 ( - )
Ohio Columbus 0.866% 2,165 42 (12 ↓) 0.866% 21,648 45 (11 ↓) 0.866% 541,212 45 (11 ↓)
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 1.435% 3,587 19 (1 ↑) 1.435% 35,870 23 (1 ↑) 1.435% 896,740 25 (1 ↑)
AVERAGE 1.408% 3,521 1.511% 37,768 1.532% 957,279 N = 11
86
 Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Tax Rate
$100,000 $1 Million $25 Million Varies with
Property
State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank
Value
Oklahoma Tulsa 1.426% 3,564 20 (1 ↑) 1.426% 35,641 25 (1 ↑) 1.426% 891,020 26 (1 ↑)
Oregon Portland 1.842% 4,605 14 ( - ) 1.842% 46,053 16 ( - ) 1.842% 1,151,327 17 ( - )
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 0.549% 1,372 49 ( - ) 0.944% 23,599 37 ( - ) 1.020% 637,486 35 (1 ↑) X
Tennessee Memphis 2.510% 6,274 7 (1 ↓) 2.510% 62,742 7(-) 2.510% 1,568,548 7(-)
Tennessee Nashville 1.073% 2,682 29 (10 ↓) 1.073% 26,818 33 (10 ↓) 1.073% 670,438 33 (8 ↓)
Texas Arlington 2.617% 6,542 5(-) 2.617% 65,424 5 (1 ↑) 2.617% 1,635,599 5 (1 ↑)
Texas Austin 2.214% 5,535 8(-) 2.214% 55,350 9(-) 2.214% 1,383,741 9(-)
Texas Dallas 2.719% 6,798 4(-) 2.719% 67,981 4(-) 2.719% 1,699,514 4(-)
Texas El Paso 2.960% 7,399 1 (1 ↑) 2.960% 73,993 1 (1 ↑) 2.960% 1,849,818 1 (1 ↑)
Texas Fort Worth 2.765% 6,914 3(-) 2.765% 69,137 3(-) 2.765% 1,728,431 3(-)
Texas Houston 2.526% 6,316 6 (1 ↑) 2.526% 63,159 6 (2 ↑) 2.526% 1,578,968 6 (2 ↑)
Texas San Antonio 2.838% 7,094 2 (1 ↓) 2.838% 70,941 2 (1 ↓) 2.838% 1,773,526 2 (1 ↓)
Virginia Virginia Beach 0.428% 1,070 50 ( - ) 0.428% 10,699 50 ( - ) 0.428% 267,468 50 ( - )
Washington Seattle 0.662% 1,656 46 (1 ↓) 0.662% 16,560 48 ( - ) 0.662% 414,011 48 ( - )
Wisconsin Milwaukee 1.238% 3,095 23 ( - ) 1.265% 31,635 28 (1 ↑) 1.268% 792,697 28 (1 ↑) X
AVERAGE 1.408% 3,521 1.511% 37,768 1.532% 957,279 N = 11

$100,000-valued property has an additional $75,000 worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $60,000 worth of inventories, and a n additional $15,000 worth of fixtures.
$1 million-valued property has an additional $750,000 worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $600,000 worth of inventories, and an additional $150,000 worth of
fixtures.
$25 million-valued property has an additional $18.75 million worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $15 million worth of inventories, and an additional $3.75 mi llion
worth of fixtures.

87
 Appendix Table 4e: Industrial Property Taxes for Selected Rural Municipalities (Personal Property = 50% of Total Parcel Value)
Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Tax Rate
$100,000 $1 Million $25 Million Varies with
Property
State Municipality Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank
Value
Alabama Monroeville 0.656% 1,312 46 (1 ↑) 0.656% 13,120 46 (1 ↑) 0.656% 328,000 46 (1 ↑)
Alaska Ketchican 0.748% 1,496 43 (2 ↓) 0.880% 17,596 39 (1 ↑) 0.894% 446,911 38 (2 ↑) X
Arizona Safford 0.943% 1,887 33 (12 ↑) 1.407% 28,133 16 (11 ↑) 1.568% 783,852 16 (3 ↑) X
Arkansas Pocahontas 0.722% 1,443 44 (2 ↓) 0.722% 14,434 44 ( - ) 0.722% 360,861 44 ( - )
California Yreka 0.845% 1,691 40 (2 ↓) 0.845% 16,909 41 ( - ) 0.845% 422,720 41 ( - )
Colorado Walsenburg 1.740% 3,480 6 (3 ↑) 1.740% 34,796 10 (1 ↑) 1.740% 869,896 10 (2 ↑)
Connecticut Litchfield 0.859% 1,718 39 (11 ↓) 0.859% 17,184 40 (9 ↓) 0.859% 429,603 40 (9 ↓)
Delaware Georgetown 0.265% 531 50 ( - ) 0.265% 5,307 50 ( - ) 0.265% 132,666 50 ( - )
Florida Moore Haven 1.520% 3,041 13 (2 ↓) 1.774% 35,476 9 (1 ↓) 1.801% 900,405 8(-) X
Georgia Fitzgerald 1.584% 3,167 11 (1 ↓) 1.584% 31,673 13 (1 ↑) 1.584% 791,816 15 ( - )
Hawaii Kauai 0.405% 810 49 ( - ) 0.405% 8,100 49 ( - ) 0.405% 202,500 49 ( - )
Idaho St. Anthony 0.893% 1,786 38 (6 ↑) 1.328% 26,561 18 (10 ↑) 1.412% 705,786 18 (6 ↑) X
Illinois Galena 1.228% 2,456 21 ( - ) 1.228% 24,560 24 (2 ↓) 1.228% 614,012 25 ( - )
Indiana North Vernon 2.421% 4,842 3(-) 2.421% 48,420 3(-) 2.421% 1,210,500 3(-)
Iowa Hampton 1.113% 2,226 25 (1 ↑) 1.549% 30,986 14 (1 ↓) 1.701% 850,728 12 (3 ↓) X
Kansas Iola 2.149% 4,298 4 (1 ↑) 2.149% 42,976 4 (2 ↑) 2.149% 1,074,390 4 (2 ↑)
Kentucky Morehead 0.652% 1,303 47 (1 ↑) 0.652% 13,032 47 (1 ↑) 0.652% 325,807 47 (1 ↑)
Louisiana Natchitoches 1.285% 2,570 18 (2 ↓) 1.285% 25,703 22 (5 ↓) 1.285% 642,568 23 (5 ↓)
Maine Rockland 1.225% 2,451 22 (2 ↑) 1.225% 24,508 25 ( - ) 1.225% 612,700 26 (2 ↑)
Maryland Denton 1.037% 2,075 28 (3 ↑) 1.037% 20,749 31 (3 ↑) 1.037% 518,730 31 (3 ↑)
Massachusetts Adams 1.215% 2,430 23 (6 ↓) 1.215% 24,305 26 (7 ↓) 1.215% 607,613 27 (6 ↓)
Michigan Manistique 1.602% 3,204 10 (4 ↓) 1.873% 37,455 7 (3 ↓) 1.873% 936,387 7 (3 ↓) X
Minnesota Glencoe 1.564% 3,128 12 (1 ↑) 1.986% 39,720 6 (1 ↑) 2.058% 1,028,762 6 (1 ↑) X
Mississippi Philadelphia 2.104% 4,208 5 (1 ↓) 2.104% 42,084 5(-) 2.104% 1,052,100 5(-)
Missouri Boonville 1.690% 3,379 8 (1 ↓) 1.690% 33,792 12 (3 ↓) 1.690% 844,799 13 (3 ↓)
Montana Glasgow 0.906% 1,812 36 ( - ) 1.207% 24,133 27 (1 ↓) 1.623% 811,265 14 ( - ) X
Nebraska Sidney 1.677% 3,354 9 (3 ↑) 1.782% 35,632 8 (4 ↑) 1.793% 896,385 9 (4 ↑) X
Nevada Fallon 1.019% 2,039 29 ( - ) 1.019% 20,386 32 ( - ) 1.019% 509,655 32 ( - )
New Hampshire Lancaster 1.359% 2,718 15 ( - ) 1.359% 27,183 17 (1 ↓) 1.359% 679,572 19 (2 ↓)
New Jersey Maurice River Twp 1.305% 2,611 17 (1 ↑) 1.305% 26,109 20 ( - ) 1.305% 652,716 21 (1 ↑)
New Mexico Santa Rosa 0.826% 1,652 41 (2 ↓) 0.826% 16,516 42 ( - ) 0.826% 412,896 42 ( - )
New York Warsaw 1.732% 3,464 7 (1 ↑) 1.732% 34,643 11 (1 ↓) 1.732% 866,064 11 ( - )
North Carolina Edenton 0.894% 1,787 37 ( - ) 0.894% 17,872 38 (1 ↑) 0.894% 446,794 39 ( - )
North Dakota Devils Lake 0.640% 1,279 48 (5 ↓) 0.640% 12,794 48 (3 ↓) 0.640% 319,856 48 (3 ↓)
Ohio Bryan 1.309% 2,618 16 (14 ↑) 1.309% 26,177 19 (14 ↑) 1.309% 654,413 20 (13 ↑)
AVERAGE 1.240% 2,479 1.297% 25,394 1.316% 657,753 N = 10
88
 Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Tax Rate
$100,000 $1 Million $25 Million Varies with
Property
State Municipality Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank
Value
Oklahoma Mangum 0.986% 1,972 30 (3 ↑) 0.986% 19,715 33 (3 ↑) 0.986% 492,885 33 (3 ↑)
Oregon Tillamook 0.933% 1,866 35 ( - ) 0.933% 18,664 37 (1 ↑) 0.933% 466,609 37 (1 ↑)
Pennsylvania Ridgway 1.494% 2,988 14 ( - ) 1.494% 29,880 15 ( - ) 1.494% 746,992 17 (1 ↓)
Rhode Island Hopkinton 1.089% 2,179 26 (1 ↓) 1.089% 21,790 29 ( - ) 1.089% 544,741 29 ( - )
South Carolina Mullins 3.673% 7,346 1(-) 3.673% 73,456 1(-) 3.673% 1,836,400 1(-)
South Dakota Vermillion 0.966% 1,932 32 (10 ↓) 0.966% 19,322 35 (12 ↓) 0.966% 483,043 35 (9 ↓)
Tennessee Savannah 0.935% 1,870 34 ( - ) 0.935% 18,705 36 (1 ↑) 0.935% 467,624 36 (1 ↑)
Texas Fort Stockton 2.585% 5,171 2(-) 2.585% 51,708 2(-) 2.585% 1,292,700 2(-)
Utah Richfield 1.183% 2,365 24 (1 ↓) 1.183% 23,654 28 (4 ↓) 1.183% 591,360 28 (1 ↓)
Vermont Hartford 1.252% 2,504 20 ( - ) 1.252% 25,041 23 (2 ↓) 1.252% 626,018 24 (1 ↓)
Virginia Wise 0.757% 1,513 42 (2 ↓) 0.757% 15,130 43 ( - ) 0.757% 378,255 43 ( - )
Washington Okanogan 0.983% 1,966 31 (1 ↑) 0.983% 19,660 34 (1 ↑) 0.983% 491,507 34 (1 ↑)
West Virginia Elkins 1.055% 2,109 27 ( - ) 1.055% 21,090 30 ( - ) 1.055% 527,255 30 ( - )
Wisconsin Rice Lake 1.260% 2,521 19 ( - ) 1.293% 25,860 21 (3 ↓) 1.297% 648,256 22 (2 ↓) X
Wyoming Worland 0.701% 1,401 45 (1 ↑) 0.701% 14,012 45 (1 ↑) 0.701% 350,290 45 (1 ↑)
AVERAGE 1.240% 2,479 1.297% 25,394 1.316% 657,753 N = 10

$100,000-valued property has an additional $50,000 worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $40,000 worth of inventories, and a n additional $10,000 worth of fixtures.
$1 million-valued property has an additional $500,000 worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $400,000 worth of inventories, and an additional $100,000 worth of
fixtures.
$25 million-valued property has an additional $12.5 million worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $10 million worth of inventories, and an additional $2.5 mill ion
worth of fixtures.

89
 Appendix Table 4f: Industrial Property Taxes for Selected Rural Municipalities (Personal Property = 60% of Total Parcel Value)
Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Tax Rate
$100,000 $1 Million $25 Million Varies with
Property
State Municipality Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank
Value
Alabama Monroeville 0.623% 1,558 46 (2 ↓) 0.623% 15,580 46 ( - ) 0.623% 389,500 46 ( - )
Alaska Ketchican 0.739% 1,847 40 (2 ↑) 0.844% 21,106 38 (1 ↑) 0.855% 534,661 37 (2 ↑) X
Arizona Safford 0.755% 1,887 39 (8 ↑) 1.378% 34,444 14 (2 ↑) 1.507% 941,609 14 (3 ↑) X
Arkansas Pocahontas 0.722% 1,806 43 (3 ↓) 0.722% 18,061 44 ( - ) 0.722% 451,536 44 ( - )
California Yreka 0.803% 2,008 35 (2 ↑) 0.803% 20,079 39 (2 ↑) 0.803% 501,980 39 (2 ↑)
Colorado Walsenburg 1.653% 4,132 6 (1 ↑) 1.653% 41,320 8 (1 ↑) 1.653% 1,033,001 8 (2 ↑)
Connecticut Litchfield 0.725% 1,812 42 (8 ↓) 0.725% 18,119 43 (6 ↓) 0.725% 452,966 43 (6 ↓)
Delaware Georgetown 0.212% 531 50 ( - ) 0.212% 5,307 50 ( - ) 0.212% 132,666 50 ( - )
Florida Moore Haven 1.487% 3,716 10 (2 ↓) 1.689% 42,233 7 (1 ↓) 1.711% 1,069,336 7 (1 ↓) X
Georgia Fitzgerald 1.540% 3,850 9(-) 1.540% 38,498 12 (1 ↓) 1.540% 962,461 13 (1 ↓)
Hawaii Kauai 0.324% 810 49 ( - ) 0.324% 8,100 49 ( - ) 0.324% 202,500 49 ( - )
Idaho St. Anthony 0.714% 1,786 44 (2 ↑) 1.271% 31,781 16 (4 ↑) 1.338% 836,278 17 (1 ↑) X
Illinois Galena 0.982% 2,456 25 ( - ) 0.982% 24,560 29 ( - ) 0.982% 614,012 29 ( - )
Indiana North Vernon 2.297% 5,742 3(-) 2.297% 57,420 3(-) 2.297% 1,435,500 3(-)
Iowa Hampton 0.890% 2,226 32 (1 ↑) 1.239% 30,986 17 (2 ↓) 1.361% 850,728 16 (1 ↓) X
Kansas Iola 1.810% 4,525 5(-) 1.810% 45,252 5 (2 ↑) 1.810% 1,131,296 5 (2 ↑)
Kentucky Morehead 0.573% 1,433 47 (1 ↑) 0.573% 14,327 47 (1 ↑) 0.573% 358,175 47 (1 ↑)
Louisiana Natchitoches 1.294% 3,235 13 (1 ↓) 1.294% 32,350 15 (2 ↓) 1.294% 808,749 18 (4 ↓)
Maine Rockland 1.025% 2,562 22 (1 ↑) 1.025% 25,622 26 (1 ↑) 1.025% 640,550 26 (1 ↑)
Maryland Denton 0.909% 2,272 31 ( - ) 0.909% 22,724 35 ( - ) 0.909% 568,105 35 ( - )
Massachusetts Adams 0.972% 2,430 26 (6 ↓) 0.972% 24,305 30 (6 ↓) 0.972% 607,613 30 (6 ↓)
Michigan Manistique 1.318% 3,295 12 (1 ↓) 1.643% 41,063 9 (4 ↓) 1.643% 1,026,570 10 (5 ↓) X
Minnesota Glencoe 1.251% 3,128 14 (1 ↑) 1.589% 39,720 11 (1 ↑) 1.646% 1,028,762 9 (4 ↑) X
Mississippi Philadelphia 2.104% 5,261 4(-) 2.104% 52,605 4(-) 2.104% 1,315,125 4(-)
Missouri Boonville 1.608% 4,019 8 (2 ↓) 1.608% 40,191 10 (2 ↓) 1.608% 1,004,777 11 (3 ↓)
Montana Glasgow 0.725% 1,812 41 ( - ) 1.110% 27,739 20 (1 ↑) 1.587% 991,565 12 (1 ↓) X
Nebraska Sidney 1.621% 4,051 7 (3 ↑) 1.704% 42,606 6 (4 ↑) 1.713% 1,070,720 6 (3 ↑) X
Nevada Fallon 0.969% 2,423 27 (1 ↓) 0.969% 24,229 31 (1 ↓) 0.969% 605,730 31 (1 ↓)
New Hampshire Lancaster 1.087% 2,718 17 ( - ) 1.087% 27,183 21 (2 ↓) 1.087% 679,572 21 ( - )
New Jersey Maurice River Twp 1.044% 2,611 21 ( - ) 1.044% 26,109 25 ( - ) 1.044% 652,716 25 ( - )
New Mexico Santa Rosa 0.790% 1,976 36 (2 ↑) 0.790% 19,760 40 (2 ↑) 0.790% 493,988 40 (2 ↑)
New York Warsaw 1.386% 3,464 11 (2 ↑) 1.386% 34,643 13 (1 ↑) 1.386% 866,064 15 (1 ↑)
North Carolina Edenton 0.850% 2,125 34 (1 ↑) 0.850% 21,247 37 (1 ↑) 0.850% 531,169 38 ( - )
North Dakota Devils Lake 0.512% 1,279 48 (3 ↓) 0.512% 12,794 48 (1 ↓) 0.512% 319,856 48 (1 ↓)
Ohio Bryan 1.047% 2,618 20 (16 ↑) 1.047% 26,177 24 (16 ↑) 1.047% 654,413 24 (16 ↑)
AVERAGE 1.115% 2,788 1.175% 29,373 1.193% 745,517 N = 10
90
 Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Land and Building Value: Tax Rate
$100,000 $1 Million $25 Million Varies with
Property
State Municipality Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank
Value
Oklahoma Mangum 1.008% 2,519 23 (1 ↓) 1.008% 25,192 27 (1 ↓) 1.008% 629,798 27 (1 ↓)
Oregon Tillamook 0.887% 2,216 33 (1 ↓) 0.887% 22,164 36 ( - ) 0.887% 554,098 36 ( - )
Pennsylvania Ridgway 1.195% 2,988 15 (1 ↑) 1.195% 29,880 18 ( - ) 1.195% 746,992 19 (1 ↑)
Rhode Island Hopkinton 0.913% 2,282 30 (1 ↓) 0.913% 22,822 34 (1 ↓) 0.913% 570,541 34 (1 ↓)
South Carolina Mullins 3.489% 8,723 1(-) 3.489% 87,229 1(-) 3.489% 2,180,725 1(-)
South Dakota Vermillion 0.773% 1,932 38 (11 ↓) 0.773% 19,322 42 (11 ↓) 0.773% 483,043 42 (11 ↓)
Tennessee Savannah 0.915% 2,287 29 (1 ↑) 0.915% 22,875 33 (1 ↑) 0.915% 571,874 33 (1 ↑)
Texas Fort Stockton 2.585% 6,464 2(-) 2.585% 64,635 2(-) 2.585% 1,615,875 2(-)
Utah Richfield 1.124% 2,809 16 (2 ↓) 1.124% 28,090 19 (2 ↓) 1.124% 702,240 20 (1 ↓)
Vermont Hartford 1.002% 2,504 24 ( - ) 1.002% 25,041 28 ( - ) 1.002% 626,018 28 ( - )
Virginia Wise 0.777% 1,944 37 (2 ↑) 0.777% 19,435 41 (2 ↑) 0.777% 485,880 41 (2 ↑)
Washington Okanogan 0.941% 2,353 28 ( - ) 0.941% 23,535 32 ( - ) 0.941% 588,370 32 ( - )
West Virginia Elkins 1.060% 2,650 18 (1 ↑) 1.060% 26,498 23 ( - ) 1.060% 662,448 23 ( - )
Wisconsin Rice Lake 1.055% 2,638 19 (1 ↓) 1.082% 27,039 22 ( - ) 1.084% 677,726 22 ( - ) X
Wyoming Worland 0.666% 1,664 45 (2 ↓) 0.666% 16,639 45 ( - ) 0.666% 415,969 45 ( - )
AVERAGE 1.115% 2,788 1.175% 29,373 1.193% 745,517 N = 10

$100,000-valued property has an additional $75,000 worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $60,000 worth of inventories, and a n additional $15,000 worth of fixtures.
$1 million-valued property has an additional $750,000 worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $600,000 worth of inventories, and an additional $150,000 worth of
fixtures.
$25 million-valued property has an additional $18.75 million worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $15 million worth of inventories, and an additional $3.75 mi llion
worth of fixtures.

91
 Appendix Table 4g: Preferential Treatment of Personal Property, Largest City in Each State (201 6)
Machinery & Equipment Manufacturers' Inventories Fixtures Rural Municipality
Are preferences for personal
Full Preferential Full Preferential Full Preferential property the same as in the
State City Exemption Treatment Exemption Treatment Exemption Treatment state’s rural municipality?
Alabama Birmingham X X Yes
Alaska Anchorage X X X No - See note below
Arizona Phoenix X X X X Yes
Arkansas Little Rock No - See note below
California Los Angeles X X Yes
Colorado Denver X X Yes
Connecticut Bridgeport X X X X Yes
DC Washington *** X X *** Yes
Delaware Wilmington X X X X X X Yes
Florida Jacksonville X X X X Yes
Georgia Atlanta X - Yes
Hawaii Honolulu X X X X X X Yes
Idaho Boise X X X X Yes
Illinois Chicago X X X X X X Yes
Illinois Aurora X X X X X X Yes
Indiana Indianapolis X X Yes
Iowa Des Moines X X X X X X Yes
Kansas Wichita X X X X Yes
Kentucky Louisville X X - Yes
Louisiana New Orleans - - - Yes
Maine Portland X X X X Yes
Maryland Baltimore X X X X - Yes
Massachusetts Boston X X X X X X Yes
Michigan Detroit X X X X Yes
Minnesota Minneapolis X X X X X X Yes
Mississippi Jackson Yes
Missouri Kansas City X X X X Yes
Montana Billings *** X X *** Yes
Nebraska Omaha *** X X *** Yes
Nevada Las Vegas X X Yes
New Hampshire Manchester X X X X X X Yes
New Jersey Newark X X X X X X Yes
New Mexico Albuquerque X X No - See note below
New York New York City X X X X X X Yes
New York Buffalo X X X X X X Yes
Number of Cities 21 31 43 47 15 23 No = 7
92
 Machinery & Equipment Manufacturers' Inventories Fixtures Rural Municipality
Are preferences for personal
Full Preferential Full Preferential Full Preferential property the same as in the
State City Exemption Treatment Exemption Treatment Exemption Treatment state’s rural municipality?
North Carolina Charlotte X X Yes
North Dakota Fargo X X X X X X Yes
Ohio Columbus X X X X X X Yes
Oklahoma Oklahoma City - - - Yes
Oregon Portland X X Yes
Pennsylvania Philadelphia X X X X X X Yes
Rhode Island Providence X X X X - No - See note below
South Carolina Columbia X X Yes
South Dakota Sioux Falls X X X X X X Yes
Tennessee Memphis X X X Yes
Texas Houston Yes
Utah Salt Lake City X X Yes
Vermont Burlington X X X X No - See note below
Virginia Virginia Beach X X X - No - See note below
Washington Seattle X X Yes
West Virginia Charleston Yes
Wisconsin Milwaukee X X X X - Yes
Wyoming Cheyenne X X No - See note below
Number of Cities 21 31 43 47 15 23 No = 7

* Preferential treatment means there are statutory provisions that result in lower property taxes on personal property than o n real property, which could be due to
exemptions/credits, the nominal tax rate, or the assessment ratio. Preferences are usually fairly uniform within a state.
** A dash ("-") indicates that real property is treated preferentially to personal property.
*** In the District of Columbia and Nebraska, there is a personal property exemption which is capped at a fixed value amount. This provides personal property with preferential
treatment for a $100,000-valued property but the non-preferential treatment embedded in the tax system overwhelms that benefit at higher values.
*** In Montana, whether personal property is treated preferentially to real property depends on the total value of a parcel. At low values, machinery and equipment and fixtures are
taxed preferentially, because of Montana’s exemption of the first $100,000 of property value. But at high values, personal property is being taxed more heavily than real property
because the state has a system of tiered assessment ratios.

Differences in Preferential Treatment in Rural Municipalities

-Alaska: Ketchikan has a full exemption for manufacturers’ inventories.
-Arkansas: Pocahontas has preferential treatment for manufacturers’ inventories.
-New Mexico: Santa Rosa has preferential treatment for machinery/equipment and fixtures.
-Rhode Island: Hopkinton does not treat real property preferentially to fixtures.
-Vermont: Hartford has a full exemption for machinery/equipment and fixtures.
-Virginia: Wise treats real property preferentially to machinery/equipment.
-Wyoming: Worland does not have preferential treatment for manufacturers’ inventories.

93
 Appendix Table 5a: Apartment Property Taxes for Largest City in Each State
Land and Building Value: Lower Tax
$600,000 Rate on
Change Personal
State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank
From ‘16 Property
Alabama Birmingham 1.450% 9,135 29 -
Alaska Anchorage 1.398% 8,809 32 - X
Arizona Phoenix 1.343% 8,458 34 3↑ X
Arkansas Little Rock 1.400% 8,820 31 1↓
California Los Angeles 1.193% 7,516 40 1↓
Colorado Denver 0.763% 4,807 50 1↑
Connecticut Bridgeport 3.806% 23,977 4 -
DC Washington 0.765% 4,820 49 1↑ X
Delaware Wilmington 1.390% 8,755 33 - X
Florida Jacksonville 1.646% 10,368 24 1↓ X
Georgia Atlanta 1.565% 9,860 26 2↓
Hawaii Honolulu 0.326% 2,051 53 - X
Idaho Boise 1.469% 9,258 28 - X
Illinois Aurora* 3.922% 24,708 3 - X
Illinois Chicago 1.244% 7,835 39 1↑ X
Indiana Indianapolis 1.838% 11,581 20 - X
Iowa Des Moines 3.338% 21,027 5 - X
Kansas Wichita 1.305% 8,223 37 2↓
Kentucky Louisville 1.081% 6,811 43 2↓ X
Louisiana New Orleans 1.490% 9,388 27 -
Maine Portland 2.041% 12,860 17 -
Maryland Baltimore 2.379% 14,991 14 1↑
Massachusetts Boston 0.958% 6,036 45 - X
Michigan Detroit 4.554% 28,689 2 - X
Minnesota Minneapolis 1.686% 10,622 22 - X
Mississippi Jackson 2.841% 17,900 8 3↑
Missouri Kansas City 1.440% 9,074 30 1↑ X
Montana Billings 0.902% 5,680 46 1↑ X
Nebraska Omaha 2.026% 12,766 18 - X
Nevada Las Vegas 1.104% 6,953 41 3↑
New Hampshire Manchester 2.150% 13,544 16 - X
New Jersey Newark 3.013% 18,980 6 - X
New Mexico Albuquerque 1.329% 8,374 35 1↓
New York Buffalo* 2.688% 16,935 10 - X
New York New York City 5.396% 33,998 1 - X
AVERAGE 1.834% 11,557 N = 30
94
 Land and Building Value: Lower Tax
$600,000 Rate on
Change Personal
State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank
From ‘16 Property
North Carolina Charlotte 1.048% 6,602 44 1↓
North Dakota Fargo 1.095% 6,900 42 - X
Ohio Columbus 2.459% 15,489 12 7↑ X
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 1.262% 7,949 38 -
Oregon Portland 2.424% 15,270 13 1↑
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 1.307% 8,232 36 - X
Rhode Island Providence 1.878% 11,828 19 2↑
South Carolina Charleston** 1.617% 10,190 25 18 ↓
South Dakota Sioux Falls 1.660% 10,457 23 3↑ X
Tennessee Memphis 2.917% 18,380 7 1↑ X
Texas Houston 2.348% 14,794 15 2↓
Utah Salt Lake City 0.722% 4,550 51 2↓ X
Vermont Burlington 2.520% 15,873 11 1↑ X
Virginia Virginia Beach 0.827% 5,208 48 -
Washington Seattle 0.841% 5,300 47 1↓
West Virginia Charleston 1.713% 10,791 21 4↑ X
Wisconsin Milwaukee 2.745% 17,296 9 -
Wyoming Cheyenne 0.602% 3,794 52 -
AVERAGE 1.834% 11,557 N = 30

* Illinois and New York have two cities included in this table, because the tax systems in Chicago and New York City are sign ificantly different from the rest of the state.
** Charleston, SC is now the largest city in the state and replaces Columbia, SC.
Property has an additional $30,000 worth of fixtures.

95
 Appendix Table 5b: Apartment Property Taxes for the Largest Fifty U.S. Cities
Land and Building Value: Lower Tax
$600,000 Rate on
Change Personal
State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank
From ‘16 Property
Arizona Mesa 0.960% 6,048 44 1↑ X
Arizona Phoenix 1.343% 8,458 25 5↑ X
Arizona Tucson 1.325% 8,348 27 2↓ X
California Fresno 1.247% 7,858 32 1↑
California Long Beach 1.218% 7,676 35 4↑
California Los Angeles 1.193% 7,516 36 2↓
California Oakland 1.349% 8,496 24 2↑
California Sacramento 1.137% 7,160 39 1↑
California San Diego 1.170% 7,369 38 2↓
California San Francisco 1.172% 7,385 37 2↓
California San Jose 1.317% 8,297 28 4↑
Colorado Colorado Springs 0.504% 3,176 50 -
Colorado Denver 0.763% 4,807 49 -
DC Washington 0.765% 4,820 48 - X
Florida Jacksonville 1.646% 10,368 19 - X
Florida Miami 1.823% 11,486 17 - X
Georgia Atlanta 1.565% 9,860 20 -
Illinois Chicago 1.244% 7,835 34 3↑ X
Indiana Indianapolis 1.838% 11,581 16 - X
Kansas Wichita 1.305% 8,223 30 2↓
Kentucky Louisville 1.081% 6,811 41 3↓ X
Louisiana New Orleans 1.490% 9,388 22 -
Maryland Baltimore 2.379% 14,991 11 1↑
Massachusetts Boston 0.958% 6,036 45 1↓ X
Michigan Detroit 4.554% 28,689 2 - X
Minnesota Minneapolis 1.686% 10,622 18 - X
Missouri Kansas City 1.440% 9,074 23 1↑ X
Nebraska Omaha 2.026% 12,766 15 1↓ X
Nevada Las Vegas 1.104% 6,953 40 2↑
New Mexico Albuquerque 1.329% 8,374 26 1↑
New York New York City 5.396% 33,998 1 - X
North Carolina Charlotte 1.048% 6,602 42 1↓
North Carolina Raleigh 0.984% 6,198 43 -
Ohio Columbus 2.042% 12,866 14 1↑ X
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 1.262% 7,949 31 -
AVERAGE 1.719% 10,833 N = 24
96
 Land and Building Value: Lower Tax
$600,000 Rate on
Change Personal
State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank
From ‘16 Property
Oklahoma Tulsa 1.501% 9,459 21 2↑ X
Oregon Portland 2.424% 15,270 10 1↑
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 1.307% 8,232 29 - X
Tennessee Memphis 2.917% 18,380 4 1↓ X
Tennessee Nashville 1.247% 7,856 33 12 ↓ X
Texas Arlington 2.659% 16,754 8 - X
Texas Austin 2.249% 14,166 13 - X
Texas Dallas 2.572% 16,204 9 2↓
Texas El Paso 2.904% 18,295 5 4↑
Texas Fort Worth 2.923% 18,416 3 3↑ X
Texas Houston 2.348% 14,794 12 2↓
Texas San Antonio 2.845% 17,925 6 1↓ X
Virginia Virginia Beach 0.827% 5,208 47 -
Washington Seattle 0.841% 5,298 46 -
Wisconsin Milwaukee 2.745% 17,296 7 3↓
AVERAGE 1.719% 10,833 N = 24

Property has an additional $30,000 worth of fixtures.

97
 Appendix Table 5c: Apartment Property Taxes for Selected Rural Municipalities
Land and Building Value: Lower Tax
$600,000 Rate on
Change Personal
State Municipality Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank
From ‘16 Property
Alabama Monroeville 0.820% 5,166 43 -
Alaska Ketchican 1.044% 6,579 35 2↑ X
Arizona Safford 0.865% 5,448 41 1↑ X
Arkansas Pocahontas 0.719% 4,531 45 -
California Yreka 1.057% 6,658 34 1↓
Colorado Walsenburg 0.672% 4,234 47 1↑
Connecticut Litchfield 2.007% 12,641 18 2↑ X
Delaware Georgetown 0.592% 3,729 49 1↑ X
Florida Moore Haven 2.163% 13,627 14 1↓ X
Georgia Fitzgerald 1.802% 11,350 22 1↑ X
Hawaii Kauai 0.576% 3,630 50 1↓ X
Idaho St. Anthony 1.701% 10,717 25 2↑ X
Illinois Galena 2.339% 14,736 10 1↑ X
Indiana North Vernon 1.931% 12,168 20 2↑ X
Iowa Hampton 3.223% 20,307 2 1↓ X
Kansas Iola 2.220% 13,985 13 2↑
Kentucky Morehead 0.995% 6,266 38 3↑ X
Louisiana Natchitoches 0.847% 5,334 42 4↓
Maine Rockland 2.228% 14,036 12 2↑
Maryland Denton 1.788% 11,265 23 1↑
Massachusetts Adams 2.015% 12,694 17 1↑ X
Michigan Manistique 2.910% 18,332 3 -
Minnesota Glencoe 1.661% 10,464 26 5↓ X
Mississippi Philadelphia 2.104% 13,256 16 -
Missouri Boonville 1.077% 6,784 32 2↑ X
Montana Glasgow 1.010% 6,361 37 1↓ X
Nebraska Sidney 2.161% 13,616 15 4↑ X
Nevada Fallon 1.281% 8,070 27 1↑
New Hampshire Lancaster 2.589% 16,310 5 - X
New Jersey Maurice River Twp 2.487% 15,665 8 - X
New Mexico Santa Rosa 0.885% 5,573 40 1↓
New York Warsaw 3.299% 20,786 1 1↑ X
North Carolina Edenton 1.113% 7,011 31 -
North Dakota Devils Lake 1.219% 7,677 28 2↓ X
Ohio Bryan 1.774% 11,177 24 1↑ X
AVERAGE 1.623% 10,224 N = 27
98
 Land and Building Value: Lower Tax
$600,000 Rate on
Change Personal
State Municipality Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank
From ‘16 Property
Oklahoma Mangum 0.887% 5,586 39 1↑
Oregon Tillamook 1.167% 7,349 30 -
Pennsylvania Ridgway 2.846% 17,928 4 - X
Rhode Island Hopkinton 1.977% 12,455 19 2↓
South Carolina Mullins 2.564% 16,152 7 -
South Dakota Vermillion 1.840% 11,593 21 9↓ X
Tennessee Savannah 1.027% 6,469 36 1↓ X
Texas Fort Stockton 2.585% 16,288 6 -
Utah Richfield 0.774% 4,879 44 - X
Vermont Hartford 2.334% 14,707 11 1↓ X
Virginia Wise 0.646% 4,068 48 2↓
Washington Okanogan 1.196% 7,534 29 -
West Virginia Elkins 1.064% 6,706 33 1↓
Wisconsin Rice Lake 2.346% 14,780 9 -
Wyoming Worland 0.714% 4,500 46 1↑
AVERAGE 1.623% 10,224 N = 27

Property has an additional $30,000 worth of fixtures.

99
 Appendix Table 6a: Commercial-Homestead Classification Ratio for Largest City in Each State

Classification Ratio Causes of Preferential Treatment of Homesteads

Chg. from Assessment Nominal Exemptions Sales
City State Rank Ratio
2016 Ratio Tax Rate & Credits Ratio*
Birmingham Alabama 9 2.180 0.009 X X
Anchorage Alaska 37 1.073 -0.003 X
Phoenix Arizona 14 1.996 -0.202 X X -
Little Rock Arkansas 29 1.259 0.000 X +
Los Angeles California 42 1.012 -0.001 X
Denver Colorado 4 3.499 -0.118 X -
Bridgeport Connecticut 44 1.000 0.000
Washington DC 10 2.168 0.028 X X -
Wilmington Delaware 53 0.879 -0.077 -
Jacksonville Florida 25 1.363 -0.036 X
Atlanta Georgia 24 1.437 -0.023 X
Honolulu Hawaii 3 3.561 -0.015 X X -
Boise Idaho 17 1.863 -0.059 X -
Aurora Illinois 34 1.096 -0.012 X
Chicago Illinois 6 2.766 -0.349 X X
Indianapolis Indiana 7 2.353 -0.245 X -
Des Moines Iowa 22 1.590 0.018 X - +
Wichita Kansas 8 2.205 0.006 X X -
Louisville Kentucky 50 0.959 -0.006 -
New Orleans Louisiana 13 2.037 -0.016 X X -
Portland Maine 36 1.077 0.017 X
Baltimore Maryland 39 1.070 0.066 +
Boston Massachusetts 1 4.237 0.469 X X -
Detroit Michigan 30 1.193 0.105 X -
Minneapolis Minnesota 15 1.977 0.018 X X X -
Jackson Mississippi 19 1.827 0.007 X X
Kansas City Missouri 18 1.847 -0.011 X X -
Billings Montana 26 1.329 0.020 X -
Omaha Nebraska 41 1.022 -0.010 - +
Las Vegas Nevada 49 0.997 -0.006 -
Manchester New Hampshire 43 1.000 0.000
Newark New Jersey 44 1.000 0.000
Albuquerque New Mexico 31 1.162 0.001 X X
Buffalo New York 23 1.463 -0.050 X X
New York City New York 2 3.968 -0.112 X - X

100
 Classification Ratio Causes of Preferential Treatment of Homesteads
Chg. from Assessment Nominal Exemptions Sales
City State Rank Ratio
2016 Ratio Tax Rate & Credits Ratio*
Charlotte North Carolina 44 1.000 0.000
Fargo North Dakota 35 1.087 -0.138 X -
Columbus Ohio 28 1.284 0.259 X X -
Oklahoma City Oklahoma 40 1.063 -0.002 X +
Portland Oregon 44 1.000 0.000
Philadelphia Pennsylvania 11 2.141 -0.014 X X
Providence Rhode Island 16 1.952 0.000 X
Charleston* South Carolina 5 3.101 NA X X
Sioux Falls South Dakota 32 1.126 -0.123 X -
Memphis Tennessee 21 1.600 0.000 X
Houston Texas 27 1.287 -0.010 X -
Salt Lake City Utah 20 1.753 -0.007 X -
Burlington Vermont 33 1.106 -0.113 X - X -
Virginia Beach Virginia 51 0.922 -0.143 -
Seattle Washington 44 1.000 0.000
Charleston West Virginia 12 2.109 -0.034 X X +
Milwaukee Wisconsin 38 1.071 0.004 X
Cheyenne Wyoming 52 0.916 -0.102 -
TOTAL/AVERAGE 1.641 -0.031 16 14 30 6 (+), 24 (-)

* Charleston, SC is now the largest city in the state and replaces Columbia, SC.

*For sales ratio, "+" indicates that the sales ratio is higher for commercial properties and thus increases the classificatio n ratio,
while "-" indicates that the sales ratio is lower for commercial properties and thus decreases the classification ratio. For a few cities,
one of the other three features of the property tax system favors commercial properties over homesteads, and this is also ind icated with a “-”.

101
 Appendix Table 6b: Apartment-Homestead Classification Ratio for Largest City in Each State

Classification Ratio Causes of Preferential Treatment of Homesteads

Chg. from Assessment Nominal Exemptions Sales
City State Rank Ratio 2016 Ratio Tax Rate & Credits Ratio**
Birmingham Alabama 5 2.180 0.009 X X
Anchorage Alaska 29 1.073 -0.003 X
Phoenix Arizona 22 1.122 -0.013 X
Little Rock Arkansas 18 1.259 0.000 X +
Los Angeles California 37 1.012 -0.001 X
Denver Colorado 33 1.038 0.044 +
Bridgeport Connecticut 40 1.000 0.000
Washington DC 24 1.117 0.014 X -
Wilmington Delaware 38 1.000 0.000
Jacksonville Florida 14 1.363 -0.036 X
Atlanta Georgia 13 1.437 -0.023 X
Honolulu Hawaii 23 1.118 -0.005 X -
Boise Idaho 7 1.863 -0.059 X -
Aurora Illinois 26 1.096 -0.012 X
Chicago Illinois 53 0.795 -0.032 - X
Indianapolis Indiana 3 2.353 -0.245 X -
Des Moines Iowa 10 1.549 -0.091 X X -
Wichita Kansas 35 1.025 0.001 X
Louisville Kentucky 50 0.959 -0.006 -
New Orleans Louisiana 12 1.461 -0.011 X
Portland Maine 28 1.077 0.017 X
Baltimore Maryland 30 1.070 0.066 +
Boston Massachusetts 6 1.954 0.246 X
Detroit Michigan 19 1.257 -0.004 X
Minneapolis Minnesota 15 1.310 -0.005 X X +
Jackson Mississippi 8 1.827 0.007 X X
Kansas City Missouri 38 1.000 0.000
Billings Montana 40 1.000 0.000
Omaha Nebraska 36 1.022 -0.010 +
Las Vegas Nevada 48 0.966 -0.006 -
Manchester New Hampshire 40 1.000 0.000
Newark New Jersey 40 1.000 0.000
Albuquerque New Mexico 34 1.034 0.000 X
Buffalo New York 11 1.463 -0.050 X X
New York City New York 1 4.800 -0.175 X - X

102
 Classification Ratio Causes of Preferential Treatment of Homesteads
Chg. from Assessment Nominal Exemptions Sales
City State Rank Ratio 2016 Ratio Tax Rate & Credits Ratio**
Charlotte North Carolina 47 1.000 0.000
Fargo North Dakota 27 1.087 -0.138 X X -
Columbus Ohio 17 1.284 0.259 X X -
Oklahoma City Oklahoma 32 1.061 -0.004 X
Portland Oregon 40 1.000 0.000
Philadelphia Pennsylvania 20 1.245 -0.009 X
Providence Rhode Island 40 1.000 0.000
Charleston* South Carolina 2 3.101 NA X X
Sioux Falls South Dakota 21 1.126 -0.123 X -
Memphis Tennessee 9 1.600 0.000 X
Houston Texas 16 1.303 -0.010 X -
Salt Lake City Utah 49 0.964 -0.004 -
Burlington Vermont 25 1.115 -0.116 X - X -
Virginia Beach Virginia 52 0.875 -0.004 -
Seattle Washington 40 1.000 0.000
Charleston West Virginia 4 2.255 0.147 X +
Milwaukee Wisconsin 31 1.069 0.004 X
Cheyenne Wyoming 51 0.920 -0.015 -
TOTAL/AVERAGE 1.332 -0.019 9 6 30 6 (+), 15 (-)

* Charleston, SC is now the largest city in the state and replaces Columbia, SC.

**For sales ratio, "+" indicates that the sales ratio is higher for apartments and thus increases the classification ratio,
while "-" indicates that the sales ratio is lower for apartments and thus decreases the classification ratio. For a few cities,
one of the other three features of the property tax system favors apartments over homesteads, and this is also indicated with a “-”.

103
 Appendix Table 7: Impact of Assessment Limits
Difference in Property Taxes between a Newly Purchased Home and a Home Subject to that
Has Been Owned for the Average Duration for the City (For Median Valued Home)
Tax Rate on Median-Valued Home Tax Bill on Median-Valued Home
Newly Home Owned Newly Home Owned
Purchased for Average Purchased for Average
State City Home Duration in City Difference Home Duration in City Difference % Difference
Arizona Mesa 0.853 0.719 0.134 1,783 1,502 281 15.8%
Arizona Phoenix 1.257 1.007 0.250 2,681 2,148 533 19.9%
Arizona Tucson 1.230 1.219 0.011 1,771 1,755 16 0.9%
Arkansas Little Rock 1.112 1.062 0.050 1,790 1,710 80 4.5%
California Fresno 1.209 0.830 0.379 2,750 1,889 861 31.3%
California Long Beach 1.202 0.744 0.458 6,237 3,862 2,375 38.1%
California Los Angeles 1.179 0.664 0.515 6,997 3,943 3,054 43.6%
California Oakland 1.334 0.755 0.579 8,667 4,902 3,765 43.4%
California Sacramento 1.111 0.653 0.458 3,408 2,005 1,403 41.2%
California San Diego 1.155 0.837 0.318 6,555 4,746 1,809 27.6%
California San Francisco 1.164 0.646 0.518 11,922 6,612 5,310 44.5%
California San Jose 1.306 0.823 0.483 10,471 6,599 3,872 37.0%
Florida Jacksonville 1.258 0.829 0.429 1,984 1,308 676 34.1%
Florida Miami 1.592 0.901 0.691 4,420 2,502 1,918 43.4%
Illinois Chicago 1.642 1.542 0.100 4,004 3,760 244 6.1%
Michigan Detroit 3.629 2.744 0.885 1,579 1,194 385 24.4%
New Mexico Albuquerque 1.274 1.252 0.022 2,441 2,399 42 1.7%
New York New York City* 1.181 0.546 0.635 6,726 3,109 3,617 53.8%
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 1.175 1.135 0.040 1,845 1,782 63 3.4%
Oklahoma Tulsa 1.403 1.372 0.031 1,825 1,785 40 2.2%
Oregon Portland* 2.424 1.645 0.779 9,577 6,498 3,079 32.1%
South Carolina Charleston 0.502 0.435 0.067 1,493 1,296 197 13.2%
Texas Arlington 2.148 2.138 0.010 3,327 3,311 16 0.5%
Texas Austin 1.898 1.898 0.000 5,855 5,855 0 0.0%
Texas Dallas 2.028 2.018 0.010 3,186 3,170 16 0.5%
Texas El Paso 2.603 2.603 0.000 3,261 3,261 0 0.0%
Texas Fort Worth 2.259 2.248 0.011 3,411 3,394 17 0.5%
Texas Houston 1.795 1.795 0.000 2,938 2,938 0 0.0%
Texas San Antonio 2.389 2.389 0.000 3,198 3,198 0 0.0%
AVERAGE 1.562 1.291 0.271 4,348 3,187 1,161 19.4%
Notes: Table is for states with parcel-specific assessment limits. Taxes on newly purchased homes come from Appendix Tables 2a and 2d, which ignore assessment limits.
Taxes on homes owned for the average duration in each city come from Appendix Tables 2b and 2e, which do account for assessment limits. See Methodology section for details.
*New York City and Portland (OR) have unique assessment limits, because they do not reset when a property is sold like in oth er cities (See Methodology section).

104