The National Conference of State Tax Judges meets annually to review recent state tax decisions, consider methods of dealing with complex tax and valuation disputes, and share experiences in case management. This meeting provides an opportunity for judges to hear and question academic experts in law, valuation, finance, and economics, and to exchange views on current legal issues facing tax courts in different states. This year there will be a special session on the housing crisis and the tax system.
resolución de conflictos, Ley de suelo, temas legales, gobierno local, políticas públicas, tributación, valuación
Lincoln Institute Sessions at the 2020 IAAO Annual Conference
Agosto 30, 2020 - Septiembre 1, 2020
Offered in inglés
Speakers: Paul Bidanset, Alan Dornfest, Daniel McMillen, Semida Munteanu, Ron Rakow, Jennifer Rearich
SHARE
The annual conference of the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) offers state and local assessing officials the opportunity to hear varied perspectives on property tax issues from practitioners and valuation experts. This year, the Lincoln Institute will present three seminars for conference participants on current issues in valuation and property tax policy:
Property Tax Policy Research Tools, Methods and Resources
Assessing officers and their associations should act as an information resource to enable legislators and other policy makers to better understand the effects of proposed policy changes. This session will highlight how to find property tax policy information and provide examples of key system features in the U.S. and Canada.
Solutions for Estimating the Value of Land in a Large Urban Jurisdiction
Accurate measurement of land value is an important component of a sound assessment system, yet allocating the land portion of total property value is challenging in areas with few vacant land sales. This session will present new methods for estimating land values in a large urban jurisdiction.
The Use and Benefits of Automated Valuation Models: Results and Insights from the 2019 AVM Survey
In 2019, the IAAO in partnership with the Lincoln Institute, surveyed the IAAO membership on the use of Automated Valuation Models (AVMs) for the assessment of property. This presentation will reveal the results of the survey and provide insight into accuracy and efficiency of these valuation tools.
avalúo, desarrollo económico, valor del suelo, impuesto a base de suelo, temas legales, gobierno local, salud fiscal municipal, tributación inmobilaria, finanzas públicas, tributación, valuación, impuesto a base de valores
Curso
2020 Professional Certificate in Municipal Finance – Online
Octubre 5, 2020 - Octubre 9, 2020
United States
Ofrecido en inglés
SHARE
Events in Detroit, Stockton, Flint, and Puerto Rico highlight the severe challenges related to fiscal systems that support public services and the continued stress they face given local governments’ shrinking revenue streams.
Whether you want to better understand public-private partnerships, debt and municipal securities, or leading land-based finance strategies to finance infrastructure projects, this Professional Certificate in Municipal Finance will give you the skills and insights you need as you advance your career in urban planning, real estate, or economic development.
Overview
Created by Harris Public Policy’s Center for Municipal Finance and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, this program provides a thorough foundation in municipal finance with a focus on urban planning and economic development. This course will include modules on the following topics:
Capital Budgeting/Accounting and Infrastructure Maintenance
Debt/Municipal Securities
Land-Based Finance/Land Value Capture
Public-Private Partnerships
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Fiscal Analysis for Land Use and Development Decisions
Participants will learn how to effectively apply tools of financial analysis to make strategic decisions and gain an improved understanding of the interplay among finance, urban economics, and public policy as it relates to urban planning and economic development.
Upon completion of the program, participants will receive a Certificate in Municipal Finance.
Who Should Attend
Urban planners who work in both the private and public sectors as well as individuals in the economic development, community development, and land development industries.
Cost
Nonprofit and public sector: $1,080
Private sector: $2,025
desarrollo económico, infraestructura, uso de suelo, gobierno local, salud fiscal municipal, planificación, tributación inmobilaria, finanzas públicas
Uneven Impacts
The Pandemic, The Property Tax, and Municipal Recovery
By Liz Farmer, Junio 16, 2020
SHARE
Local governments are still learning what the COVID-19 crisis will mean for their revenues over the next year. In large part, the answer will depend on what part of the economy they rely on for their tax revenue.
Some are already grappling with grim news. In Kansas City, Missouri, council members are looking at budget cuts totalling $300 million over the next six years. In March, they approved a $1.7 billion budget that included a hiring freeze and reductions in travel, but noted they’ll likely have to face more difficult choices in the months ahead.
Meanwhile, more than 1,400 miles away in Boston, Mayor Marty Walsh has proposed a $3.65 billion budget for the next fiscal year. It’s a 4.4 percent spending boost over the current year that includes increased funding for education, housing, and public health.
It’s not that Boston is facing a vastly lower public health or economic impact from the COVID-19 virus. In fact, it has had notably more COVID-19 cases than Kansas City, both in number and as a share of the population. Instead, the difference lies in where each city gets most of its tax revenue.
In Boston, proceeds from the property tax make up 72 percent of general fund revenue. In Kansas City, however, property tax revenue accounts for less than 12 percent of general fund revenue. Instead, the city relies on more economically sensitive income streams: a local wage tax (44 percent of revenues) and the sales tax (20 percent of revenues). With the near-halting of economic activity this spring, the city is expecting an estimated $30 million–or 4 percent of general fund–revenue shortfall in the current fiscal year, which ended April 30, according to Fitch Ratings. That’s mainly due to Kansas City extending its earning-tax payment deadline; officials hope to recoup most of that in the 2021 fiscal year.
While the full impacts of the COVID-19 crisis on municipal revenues over the next few years are still unknown, what is clear is that we have been thrust into an economic recession that is unmatched in the modern era. During economic downturns, the property tax is a relatively stable source of revenue. The average city relies on the property tax for about one-quarter of general fund revenue, according to the Lincoln Institute’s Fiscally Standardized Cities, or FiSC, database. (Counties, by comparison, rely on the property tax for about one-third of their general fund revenue, according to the National Association of Counties.)
“During most post-World War II recessions, property tax revenues have not declined,” says the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy’s Adam Langley, who manages the FiSC database. This is largely because even if a downturn is prolonged enough to affect local home values, the lag time between real estate market changes and property valuations gives governments time to raise rates to make up the anticipated difference in revenue. “The notable exception is the Great Recession,” said Langley, associate director of U.S. and Canadian programs, “and that was a unique circumstance because of the historic housing bust.”
Kansas City Budget Director Scott Huizenga noted that the city’s rainy day reserves are at a record high — equivalent to nearly 20 percent of general fund spending. That’s a far better position than Kansas City was in entering the Great Recession, when it had about 5 percent of annual spending in reserves, according to Pew Trusts. Huizenga notes that forecasting the revenue impacts of the current crisis is a challenge.
“Like most places, we have a two-month delay between the activity on the ground and the revenue impact,” Huizenga said during an interview in late May. “It will be at least a few weeks more before we learn the totality of what happened in April, much less what’s going to happen a year from now.”
Even cities that rely on the relative stability of the property tax are by no means immune from the uncertainty of the moment. Cities across the country are struggling to balance their need for property tax revenue with the potential need to grant deferrals or other targeted tax relief to property owners who may not be able to pay their bills.
For example, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order waiving penalties through May 6, 2021 for late property tax payments made by those affected by COVID-19. But the California Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors then urged those who could pay to do so on time, noting that property taxes “directly fund education, health care, hospitals, welfare services, fire protection, and homelessness efforts, to name a few.” At this point, most localities haven’t significantly pushed back property tax bill deadlines, even if their state has allowed it.
In many places, existing property tax relief programs are available, and when effectively targeted can provide critical relief to the neediest households without unduly diminishing local revenues. These “circuit breakers” provide relief to households once their property taxes exceed a specified percentage of income, so people with a sudden drop in earnings could qualify for substantial relief. Circuit breakers are available in 33 states and the District of Columbia, although many of those states use formulas that will not provide adequate relief to those with the heaviest tax burdens.
Conflicting predictions about the future of commercial real estate have also added uncertainty to the municipal property tax picture. With social distancing restrictions and other public health precautions decimating the retail and hospitality sector, several major retailers have declared bankruptcy and businesses of all sizes are struggling to stay open.
“Shopping malls and property used in the hospitality and entertainment industry may very well be facing a significant loss in value, particularly over the next couple of years.” said Lincoln Institute Resident Fellow Daphne Kenyon. “This would disproportionately affect those cities that are tourist or shopping meccas.” Reliance on commercial property tax revenue varies significantly from state to state, as illustrated by the Significant Features of the Property Tax database.
The future of commercial office space is also in question; it is expected that many employers will allow full or partial telecommuting after COVID-19 restrictions are lifted, and one University of Chicago study found that 34 percent of jobs in the United States could be performed remotely. Already, major tech companies like Facebook and Twitter have announced plans to let employees work from home permanently.
Some experts are predicting a sort of real estate “swap,” which could see businesses seeking new property outside of downtowns and former downtown office buildings converted to housing. Still others suggest that the smaller space requirements of housing fewer workers will be offset by the need to accommodate social distancing. These and other issues raise questions about the future of real estate in large cities—and therefore the value of downtown real estate properties and the tax revenue they generate.
Hilltop Securities’ Tom Kozlik said there were somewhat similar concerns that firms wouldn’t want to return to downtown Manhattan after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
“I remember there were some people hesitant to fly or go up in skyscrapers, but that seemed to pass in a pretty short amount of time,” said Kozlik, head of municipal credit for the firm. “This time it’s a little different—I don’t think people have their heads around what the entire public health threat is right now. And that’s one of things policymakers are trying to figure out.”
Despite the many uncertainties facing municipal governments, Kenyon says the relative stability of the property tax is not in doubt. “Property taxes are the most stable of the big three taxes—income, sales, and property. For local governments that depend heavily on the property tax, and for the citizens who benefit from the services that property taxes support, this is a ray of light in a very tumultuous time.”
Liz Farmer is a fiscal policy expert and journalist whose areas of expertise include budgets, fiscal distress, and tax policy. She is currently a research fellow at the Rockefeller Institute’s Future of Labor Research Center.
Photographs in order of appearance
In municipalities across the country, including Kansas City, Missouri, leaders are grappling with the fiscal impacts of COVID-19. The impacts will vary depending on the relative sources of tax revenue in each place. Credit: Kate Brown via Flickr CC BY 2.0.
During most post-World War II recessions, property tax revenues have not declined, largely because the lag time between real estate market changes and property valuations gives governments time to make up the anticipated difference in revenue. The notable exception was the Great Recession. Credit: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Property Tax
Fifty-State Study Shows Property Tax Inequities from Assessment Limits Continue to Grow
In Los Angeles, someone who has owned a median-priced home for 14 years—the average length of ownership in the city—paid about $4,400 in property taxes last year, or about $3,600 less than a new owner of an identical home, who paid nearly $8,000. This gap between the tax bills for new and established homeowners grew by $400 last year alone, and has increased by $1,500 in the past four years, according to the annual 50-State Property Tax Comparison Study by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence.
Los Angeles is one of 29 large cities included in the report where assessment limits cap annual growth in the assessed value of individual properities, a policy that favors longtime homeowners. When real estate prices rise, these assessment limits shift more of the tax burden to newer homeowners, whose properties are assessed closer to the market value. Overall, in the 29 cities with these assessment limits, new homeowners paid 30 percent more in taxes last year than those who have owned their homes for the average duration within their city, more than double the 14-percent disparity four years earlier.
The 50-State Property Tax Comparison Study explores several key factors influencing property taxes, providing a comprehensive analysis of effective property tax rates—the tax paid as a percentage of market value—in 123 cities in every U.S. state and Washington, DC.
Drawing on data for 73 large U.S. cities, the study explains why property taxes vary so widely from place to place. Reliance on the property tax is chief among the reasons. 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, Bridgeport, Connecticut, has one of the highest effective tax rates on the median-valued home, while Birmingham, Alabama, has one of the lowest. But the average Birmingham resident pays 32 percent more in total local taxes when accounting for sales, income, and other local taxes.
Property values are the other crucial factor explaining differences in tax rates. Cities with low property values need to impose a higher tax rate to raise the same revenue as cities with high property values. For example, the effective tax rate on the typical home in Detroit, which has the lowest median home value in the study, is three times higher than in San Francisco, which has the highest, after accounting for assessment limits. In Detroit, to raise $3,206 per home—the national average tax bill on a median-valued home—would require an effective tax rate 23 times higher than in San Francisco.
Other drivers of variation in property tax rates include the different treatment of various classes of property, such as residential and commercial, and the level of local government spending.
Among the largest cities in each state, the average effective tax rate on a median-valued home was 1.4 percent in 2019, with wide variation across cities. Four cities have effective tax rates that are at least double the national average—Aurora (IL), Bridgeport, Newark(NJ), and Detroit. Conversely, seven cities have tax rates less than half of the average—Honolulu, Boston, Charleston (SC), Denver, Cheyenne (WY), Birmingham, and Nashville.
Commercial property tax rates on office buildings and similar properties also vary significantly across cities. The effective tax rate on a $1 million commercial property is 1.9 percent, on average, across the largest cities in each state. The highest rates are in Detroit, Providence, Chicago, and Bridgeport, where rates are at least two-thirds higher than average. Rates are less than half of the average in Cheyenne, Seattle, and Charlotte.
The report is available for download on the Lincoln Institute website:
Webinar Series – The Property Tax-School Funding Connection
Mayo 18, 2020 - Mayo 20, 2020
Offered in inglés
Moderator: Daphne Kenyon
Speakers: Julie Underwood, Laura Ullrich, Lynn Moak
SHARE
The property tax plays a key role in the funding of public education in the U.S. In 2015-16, about 45 percent of the total revenue supporting elementary and secondary education came from local governments, and 81 percent of the local share came from property taxes. A central tenant of education finance in the U.S. is local control. A robust role for local funding is important if local citizens, through their school boards or local referenda, are going to have a meaningful voice in the operation of local schools. The consensus among public finance scholars is that the property tax has many positive attributes as a local government tax.
However, most state legislatures have enacted a variety of property tax limitations—on the property tax base, on rates, or on revenues. So how do policymakers assure that there is adequate funding for public education while maintaining a significant degree of fiscal autonomy for local school districts?
This webinar series explores the experience of three states that have enacted various types of property tax limitations and the efforts taken to ensure continued adequate funding for public education. Presenters from each state assess the effectiveness of those efforts and suggest possible policy reforms to ensure adequate funding for public education on an ongoing basis.
Speakers:
Daphne Kenyon (Resident Fellow in Tax Policy, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy) introduces the series by describing the role of the property tax in funding public education over time and across the U.S. She also serves as moderator for the series.
Julie Underwood (Professor of Education Law, Policy, and Practice and former Dean of the School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison) describes Wisconsin’s approach to limiting school property taxes. She also describes the increasing role of school choice across the state.
Laura Ullrich (Regional Economist, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond) describes South Carolina’s tax swap, enacted in 2006, which reduced local property taxes and increased the state’s reliance on sales taxes. The talk focuses on the impacts of this tax swap on public education and highlights the consequences of replacing a relatively stable revenue source with a less stable one.
Lynn Moak (Managing Partner, Moak, Casey & Associates [school finance consultants]) discusses property tax restrictions and school funding legislation enacted during Texas’ most recent legislative session (HB3 signed into law in 2019). In this presentation, he also assesses the ongoing school funding challenges that remain.
Participant Outcomes:
Learn about how three states try to both provide adequate funding for K-12 education and appropriate property tax relief.
Learn about policy pitfalls and model policies that relate to school funding and property tax relief.
Improving Value-Based Taxation of Real Property in Latvia
Julio 7, 2020 - Julio 8, 2020
Free, offered in inglés
Faculty: Albina Aleksienė, Sarmīte Barvika, Paul Bidanset, Andrejs Birums, Aldis Bukss, Riël Franzsen, Rita Pētersone, Ronald Rakow, Enid Slack, Tambet Tiits, Alija Turlaja, Joan Youngman
Co-Sponsors: Riga Technical University, State Land Service of Latvia
SHARE
This workshop, developed in collaboration with Riga Technical University and the State Land Service of Latvia within the Ministry of Justice, provides an opportunity for public officials in Latvia to hear presentations from academic experts and practitioners in valuation, law, and economics. The program focuses on a variety of property tax issues, including current situations and practices in the Baltic region, and offers a forum to exchange ideas on local tax issues facing policymakers.
The agenda features sessions on valuation methods and tax equity; international experiences and challenges with alternative tax systems; approaches to residential taxation; mass valuation applications, standards, and data; the role of the property tax in sustainable land management and urban planning; considerations in tax rate setting; and enhancing communication and public awareness of tax policies. Many of the sessions will also address the impact of COVID-19 on property taxation and potential solutions.