Docstoc

Texas State Property Tax Rate Caps and Appraisal Rates

Document Sample
Texas State Property Tax Rate Caps and Appraisal Rates Powered By Docstoc
					     The Potential Impacts
of Property Tax Relief Proposals
           in Virginia




         Fiscal Analytics, Ltd.
              April, 2005
Introduction
One of the primary issues in the 2005 Governor’s race will be real estate tax policy. Both
major party candidates are proposing constitutional modifications to the real property tax.
Tim Kaine is proposing a local option “homestead exemption” of up to 20 percent of the
value of owner-occupied homes and farms. Jerry Kilgore is proposing a mandatory five
percent cap on annual real estate assessment increases until a property is sold. Lower
property tax revenue with reduced public services is one possible result of either
proposal. Other possibilities include higher property tax rates, or higher tax rates and
fees from other revenue sources, to make up the difference.

Real property tax policy has been the sole discretion of local governing bodies in Virginia
since 1926, when Governor Byrd exchanged the state’s right to impose a real estate tax
for the localities’ agreement to give up their right to impose an income tax. Imposing
assessment or other limitations on localities to impose real estate taxes would be the first
major change to the 1926 deal.

Kaine’s plan would alter the equity in Virginia’s real estate tax system because it offers
no tax break to either apartment-dwellers or businesses. Tenants could see their rents rise
as the tax burden shifts to commercial properties. Kilgore’s plan would allow identical
homes in the same locality to be taxed differently based on the length of time each owner
has lived there. Either proposal would weaken budget discipline, since support for
services would not necessarily be linked to the responsibility to pay for them. Forcing
local governments to depend more on business taxes could also slow economic growth.

Slowing the growth of tax receipts has implications for the delivery of local services, and
the levels of state aid needed. Each locality in Virginia has a unique tax base and
demographics. Standardizing tax policy amongst localities with different circumstances
would place some localities at a serious disadvantage. All localities rely on real estate
taxes for a major portion of funding for public schools, law enforcement, infrastructure,
health and welfare services, etc. High growth localities in particular could be severely
constrained in their ability to finance a growing population’s service needs. Localities
with small commercial tax bases would have limited options in replacing lost revenue.

Caps on assessments are used in 19 states and thirty-one states allow local governments
to provide real estate exemptions to homeowners. Nearly all states, including Virginia,
offer property tax breaks to the elderly and disabled. Studies show that there are clearly
consequences to limiting real estate taxes. Local governments in states that cap
assessments have raised other taxes and have used a variety of fees to cover lost real
estate revenues. Some have also have been reported to require developers to include the
cost of schools and roads in new housing projects, pushing up the cost of new homes.
State governments in states with severe property tax constraints have had to increase
responsibility for local services.




Fiscal Analytics, Ltd.                                                                    2
Potential Cost of the Proposals
The Department of Taxation in its 2004 annual report stated that average real estate tax
rates for per $100 of assessed value were $1.03 in tax year 2003 on $552 billion in
assessed real estate values. Average tax rates have had little variation since at least 1991
(ranging from $1.01 to $1.05). Assessments have grown at an average annual rate of
about 6 percent since 1991. Using the average tax rate of $1.03 per $100 of value and
assuming 6 percent average assessment growth from 2003 to 2009, each one percent
reduction in assessment growth resulting from a cap on real estate assessments, assuming
no increase in tax rates, would lower statewide real property tax revenues by
approximately $80 million per year by 2009.

Estimated 2009 Real Estate Assessment Value                                   $784 billion
Average Property Tax Rate per $100                                            $1.03
Potential loss in revenue per 1 percent reduction in assessments              $80 million


The cost to local government of a 20 percent “homestead” exemption applied to all
residential property in Virginia would be very expensive. About 70 percent of all real
estate value is residential property. If all localities applied a local option “homestead”
exemption of 20 percent for all residential property, the cost would be 14 percent of all
property tax revenues. In 2009, this would equate to about $1 billion dollars in revenue.


Local Revenue and Spending
From 1990-2004, total own-source local revenue, real estate taxes, and state aid to
localities all grew at an average annual rate of about 6 percent. Federal aid to localities
over the same time period, while much smaller in amount, grew at an average annual rate
of almost 10 percent. Growth in total local expenditures corresponds to the 6 percent
annual revenue growth. Of the major spending categories, health and welfare grew at the
fastest annual average rate of 8 percent per year from 1990-2004; law enforcement grew
at about 6.5 percent annually; and public education and public works expenditures at
under 6 percent annually.

In terms of magnitude, the largest own-source revenue for local governments in FY 2004
was from real property taxes ($5.90 bil.), followed by other property taxes ($1.6 bil.) and
service charges ($1.2 bil.). The largest net local expenditure in FY 2004 was for public
schools ($5.2 bil.), followed by law enforcement ($2.3 bil.) and health and welfare ($1.0
bil.). State aid to localities totaled $6.8 billion and federal aid totaled $1.7 billion in FY
2004.1




1
 “Comparative Report of Local Government Revenues and Expenditures
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2004”, Auditor of Public Accounts.

Fiscal Analytics, Ltd.                                                                       3
                           1990-2004 Average Growth Rates
                         for Local Revenues and Expenditures

   12.0%
                                 Expenses                                            Revenues
   10.0%
    8.0%
    6.0%
    4.0%
    2.0%
    0.0%
                           t




                                                                                           l
                n




                                                           p.




                                                                                         ev
                                             ks




                                                                            s




                                                                                         v.
                                  W
                         en




                                                                                        ca
                                                                          xe
                io




                                                         Ex




                                                                                       Re
                                           or




                                                                                     eR
                                  &




                                                                                      Lo
                        em
             at




                                                                        Ta
                                          W
                                 H
           uc




                                                        g




                                                                                   d.
                      rc




                                                                                   at
                                                                                  ce
                                                      in




                                                                      RE




                                                                                Fe
        Ed




                                          ic




                                                                                St
                   fo




                                                                               ur
                                                    at
                                        bl
                 En




                                                     r




                                                                            So
                                      Pu


                                                   pe
               w




                                                  O




                                                                           n
                                                                          w
             La




                                               al




                                                                         O
                                             t
                                          To




                         FY 2004 Local Revenue Sources ($ 12.3 bil.)
                                                                All Other Taxes   ($0.99)
                                        Other Revenues
                                       ($0.71)
                     Service Charges                                                Other Property
                                                                                        Taxes ($1.64)
                       ($1.21)


                                                                                    Sales Taxes ($0.88)


                                                                                  Consumer Utility
                                                                                            ($0.51)

                      Real Property
                                                                               BPOL ($0.52)
                        ($5.90)




Fiscal Analytics, Ltd.                                                                                    4
                   FY 2004 Net Local Operating Spending ($ 11.4 bil.)

                                       Comm. Dev.
                                                       General Government ($0.72)
                                       ($0.45)
                                                           Judicial ($0.16)
                               Parks
                            ($0.67)                                  Public Safety($2.31)




                                                                      Public Works ($0.90)
                            Education
                            ($5.16)
                                                              Health & Welfare ($1.04)




In FY 2004, localities spent about $5.2 billion from local revenue sources of the total
$10.2 billion spent from all revenue sources on K-12 operating expenses. Combining the
annual $5.2 billion in net local school and the $2.3 billion in net local public safety
operating expenditures exceeded the total FY 2004 real estate revenues by about $1.6
billion. Capping real estate revenues would have serious implications for local budget
priorities. In addition, localities shoulder almost all the capital improvement burden of
public school programs. There was about $940 million in school capital expenditures in
FY 2004, bringing total local education capital improvement debt outstanding to about $7
billion. This interest cost alone of this debt cost local governments another $280 million
in FY 2004.2

Including the state’s incentive and categorical account funding, Fiscal Analytics
estimates that localities spent about $2.6 billion in FY 2004 beyond the state’s minimum
program levels for public education.3 In a recent report, JLARC documented almost $1
billion in unfunded SOQ costs by the state, including standards recommended by the
Board of Education.4 These unfunded costs identified by JLARC are primarily
unrecognized administrative and teaching positions and state-recognized funding levels
for salaries that are significantly lower than actual prevailing salary levels. Also, since
the state’s SOQ costs represent only minimum requirements, and are not related to

2
  APA FY 2004 Comparative of Local Revenues and Expenditure Report, Schedules E, F, and G.
3
  See Table 1.
4
  “Update on Standards of Quality Funding: JLARC Tier One, and SOQ Adopted by BOE”, January 18,
2005.

Fiscal Analytics, Ltd.                                                                            5
Standards of Learning outcomes, virtually all localities spend considerable sums beyond
the SOQ minimums to reach the SOL learning goals. Restricting the major source of
local revenue flexibility would constrain the ability of local governments to meet the
state’s Standards of Learning and the federal No Child Left Behind goals.

The $900 million in 2004-06 biennial unfunded state SOQ public education costs
documented by JLARC represents approximately 9 percent of local property tax
revenues. The $2.6 billion spent by localities annually above state required matching
funds for all accounts represents 45 percent of all local real property tax revenues.
Significant property tax relief could be implemented by local governments if the state
properly funded its share of public education in Virginia.

Table 1 at the end of this report lists each locality’s FY 2004 education expenditures and
their state aid for education (net of sales tax distributions for calculation purposes).
These figures are used, along with the local composite index, to estimate the amount of
education expenditures made by each locality above the required state match - $2.6
billion in total.

Table 2 uses these estimates to compute the real estate tax rate required to fund each
individual locality’s education expenditures and the rate required to fund the expenditures
made above the required state education match. For example, in the state’s largest
locality, Fairfax County, $1.31 billion in local funds was spent on education operations in
FY 2004; comprised of an estimated $596 million in local match for $200 million in state
funds, and $719 million in local spending above the required state match. Therefore in
FY 2004, Fairfax County spent approximately 99 cents of its $1.13 real estate rate on its
public education expenditures, with 54 cents of the real estate tax needed for the local
spending above the state match funding requirements.

Table 3 estimates the real estate tax rate needed to fund just the high-priority state
shortfall in education funding as documented by JLARC. Fiscal Analytics used the
midpoint of JLARC’s biennial unfunded estimate - $906 million - then computed each
school division’s share of this amount using their share of total ADM and their local
composite index. For example -- Arlington (1 cent), Fairfax (2 cents), and Loudoun (3
cents) because of their high composite index -- use only a relatively small amount of their
real estate tax to fund the JLARC documented SOQ shortfall, while other localities with
lower composite indexes need up to the equivalent of over 20 cents of their tax rate to
make up JLARC’s estimated SOQ state shortfall.




Fiscal Analytics, Ltd.                                                                   6
Reliance on Real Estate Taxes
In FY 2004, localities relied on real estate taxes for nearly 48 percent ($5.9 billion) of
$12.3 billion in locally-generated revenues. Reliance on property taxes has increased by
six percentage points since FY 1995. This has offset the decline in reliance on “other
property taxes”, principally car tax revenue. In addition, localities have increased their
reliance on service charges and other taxes since 1995. Capping or restricting property
tax revenue would accelerate this trend, and possibly de-link the cost of services to the
ability-to-pay.


Relative Changes in Local Revenue Collections Since FY 1995

                             FY 1995     % of Total      FY 2004      % of Total
Real Property             $3,150,901,081    41.7%      $5,864,528,476    47.6%
Other Property Taxes      $1,467,000,094    19.4%      $1,638,009,223    13.3%
Sales Taxes                 $560,049,595      7.4%       $878,620,345      7.1%
Consumer Utility            $352,731,166      4.7%       $511,871,664      4.2%
BPOL                        $327,826,162      4.3%       $517,469,259      4.2%
All Other Taxes             $507,302,440      6.7%       $993,389,156      8.1%
Service Charges             $703,335,629      9.3%     $1,206,310,275      9.8%
Other Revenues              $480,674,102      6.4%       $709,420,291      5.8%

Total                     $7,549,820,269              $12,319,618,689



Counties had an even higher average reliance on property taxes. The averages mask the
large variance in individual localities’ reliance on real estate taxes, ranging from 14
percent to 58 percent in cities and 18 percent to 63 percent in counties. This large
variance demonstrates the different needs of each locality.




           FY 2004 Locality Reliance on Real Estate Taxes

                            Real Property       % of
                         Revenues ($ mil.) Local Revenues         Variance
Cities                             $1,690      40.3%            14% to 58%
Counties                           $4,129      52.1%            18% to 63%
Towns                                 $45      21.7%             3% to 41%
All Localities                    $5,864        47.6%           3% to 63%


Fiscal Analytics, Ltd.                                                                  7
The heaviest reliance on real estate taxes for local revenue is in Virginia’s fastest growing
localities.   The implications of a property tax cap would be felt the most in these
localities. Fast growing localities rely on real estate taxes, particularly residential, to
finance the growth in schools and infrastructure.


Fastest Growing      Projected % Increase in FY04 Reliance on Residential
Localities 2000-2004 School ADM FY 05-10 Real Estate Taxes % of RE Taxes
Loudoun                        50%                63%            70%
Stafford                       21%                53%            78%
Spotsylvania                   26%                50%            77%
Prince William                 24%                56%            82%
Fluvanna                       17%                45%            78%
Mannassas Park                 29%                55%            83%
Suffolk                        18%                46%            72%

Note: School membership forecast from the Weldon Cooper Center

Local governments in Northern Virginia also rely particularly heavily on the real estate
tax for local revenue. One reason is because the level of state aid for public schools is
generally low in that region of the state due to their high composite index. In addition,
state support for other programs, such as community service boards and other health and
welfare programs, is low compared to local expenditures. Because of this, it would be
very difficult for the state to make up any loss in local revenue in Northern Virginia from
a real estate cap. Even with an assessment cap, it is likely that the “true value of real
estate” would still be calculated for local composite index purposes. Therefore, any
reductions in the real estate tax, particularly in this area of the state, would necessarily
have to come from increasing other local revenue sources or budget cuts.


                         FY 04 Reliance on        Composite
NoVa Localities          Real Estate Taxes          Index
Alexandria                     55%                 0.8000
Arlington                      57%                 0.8000
Fairfax City                   45%                 0.8000
Falls Church                   56%                 0.8000
Fairfax County                 59%                 0.7489
Loudoun                        63%                 0.7220
Prince William                 56%                 0.4086
Manassas                       49%                 0.4254
Manassas Park                  55%                 0.3661




Fiscal Analytics, Ltd.                                                                     8
The percentage of commercial property and farmland in the real estate tax base is also
critical to evaluating the impact of the property tax proposals because commercial
property and farmland would not be eligible for a homestead exemption. The higher the
mix of commercial property, the less impact the “homestead” proposal would have on the
tax base. The following table illustrates the differences in the real estate tax bases in the
three major metropolitan areas of the state. For northern Virginia, the farther from the
urban core, the greater reliance on the residential property tax base. Therefore, the
impact of a homestead exemption would be relatively lower in Arlington than in other
northern Virginia localities. In Hampton Roads, Newport News and Norfolk have a
higher percentage of commercial property in their real estate tax bases. In the Richmond
region, the more urbanized localities also have a much higher percentage of commercial
property in their tax base. Of course, rural localities in general rely more on residential
and agricultural/undeveloped land for their property tax base (see Table 4 in back of
report).

          Reliance by Property Type for Real Estate Taxes

                            2004 Percent of Assessed Taxable Real Estate
No. Virginia             % Residential % Commercial * % Ag./undeveloped
Arlington                        56%                44%                  0%
Alexandria                       60%                40%                  0%
Fairfax County                   78%                22%                  0%
Loudoun                          70%                24%                  6%
Prince William                   82%                16%                  2%
Hampton Roads
Norfolk                           65%                     33%                 2%
Virginia Beach                    76%                     24%                 0%
Chesapeake                        74%                     24%                 2%
Suffolk                           72%                     19%                 9%
Hampton                           71%                     29%                 0%
Newport News                      60%                     40%                 0%
Richmond Region
Richmond                          63%                     37%                  0%
Chesterfield                      75%                     23%                  1%
Henrico                           66%                     33%                  1%
Petersburg                        59%                     40%                  1%
Hanover                           72%                     18%                 10%
Powhatan                          79%                      4%                 17%

* includes apartments
Source: 2004 Assessment Survey, Virginia Association of Assessing Officers.

Fiscal Analytics, Ltd.                                                                     9
Differences in Locality Assessment Growth by Property Type
From year 2000 to year 2004 a wide variation occurred in assessment growth both
between different localities and the type of property within a locality. The table below
provides a sampling of different localities and the growth rates for residential,
apartments, and commercial property from tax year 2000 to tax year 2004. Certain cities,
such as Alexandria, Charlottesville, and Winchester, and counties such as Fairfax, Prince
William, and Spotsylvania, had much higher residential growth rates than commercial.
The tax burden from a property tax cap or homestead exemption on residential
assessments would not have been as easily transferred to commercial property in these
localities as others with relatively higher rates of commercial property growth.

Localities with high rates of commercial growth relative to their residential growth from
2000-04 were the counties of Arlington, Bedford, Goochland, Madison, and Powhatan.
These localities would have theoretically had a greater ability to transfer the property tax
burden to commercial property over the 2000-04 timeframe. In general, cities (and
southwest Virginia) had lower commercial growth rates than counties over the timeframe
analyzed, and thus a reduced ability to transfer property taxes to commercial property.




2000-2004 Growth in Assessed Values by Selected Locality

Selected Cities            Residential    Apartments     Commercial
Alexandria                      96.9%          46.4%            40.8%
Charlottesville                 71.3%          51.7%            39.7%
Danville                         9.5%           5.0%            18.6%
Fredericksburg                  51.3%          74.5%            47.1%
Hampton                         33.4%          23.7%            19.5%
Hopewell                        18.3%          10.0%           -11.4%
Lynchburg                       32.5%         -15.0%            27.8%
Martinsville                     4.4%          18.0%            24.7%
Newport News                    16.8%          -0.4%           -12.0%
Norfolk                         36.1%          19.8%            21.4%
Petersburg                      24.8%           6.8%            20.8%
Portsmouth*                     16.5%          10.9%            16.8%
Richmond                        41.9%          20.1%               n/a
Roanoke City                    34.8%          14.8%            18.2%
Staunton                        31.2%          13.6%            22.2%
Virginia Beach                  26.6%          41.1%            23.5%
Winchester                      70.7%             n/a           16.6%



Fiscal Analytics, Ltd.                                                                   10
Selected Counties             Residential     Apartments        Commercial
Appomattox                         34.7%            25.6%             18.2%
Arlington                          91.5%            48.7%             96.2%
Augusta                            33.4%            32.8%             19.5%
Bedford                            32.6%            13.8%             65.5%
Campbell                           37.3%            27.9%             28.2%
Chesterfield                       42.0%            42.0%             47.0%
Dickenson                           7.1%            -7.5%            -22.5%
Fairfax                            81.9%            61.6%             43.4%
Goochland                          88.6%           140.9%            108.3%
Halifax                             4.7%             1.1%              5.1%
Henrico                            48.4%            34.6%             39.4%
James City                         36.0%            16.1%             13.7%
Lancaster                           5.9%            26.6%              8.3%
Lee                                 6.1%            -2.7%            -16.8%
Loudoun                            76.8%               n/a            56.8%
Madison                            32.8%            38.0%             52.8%
Prince George                      35.6%            14.1%             31.3%
Powhatan                           45.2%            17.2%             68.0%
Prince William                     80.5%            55.4%             33.7%
Pulaski                             4.5%             3.8%             -0.2%
Roanoke County                     27.9%            13.1%             19.8%
Spotsylvania                       66.4%            86.8%             37.7%
Sussex                              3.9%            -0.9%              2.7%

Source: FA analysis of survey data provided to the Department of Taxation by Commissioners of Revenue
and Directors of Finance for 2000-03, and the 2004 VAAO survey.




Fiscal Analytics, Ltd.                                                                             11
Comparison to Income Tax Growth
Growth in state income taxes has been counter-cyclical to the growth in local real estate
taxes. Real estate taxes have grown faster during recessions, while income taxes have
grown faster during economic recoveries. Real estate tax revenues grew at double-digit
rates in 2003-2004, while income tax revenues grew at high rates in the late 1990’s. The
high growth in real estate revenues during the recession offset the lower state aid
available during the recession.



                         Income and Property Tax Growth Rates
                               Have Been Countercyclical

    20.0%
                                                                          Real estate
    15.0%
    10.0%
      5.0%
      0.0%
     -5.0%
                                                                               Income
   -10.0%
             82
             83
             84
             85
             86
             87
             88
             89
             90
             91
             92
             93
             94
             95
             96
             97
             98
             99
             00
             01
             02
             03
             04
           19
           19
           19
           19
           19
           19
           19
           19
           19
           19
           19
           19
           19
           19
           19
           19
           19
           19
           20
           20
           20
           20
           20




Fiscal Analytics, Ltd.                                                                  12
Remarkably, both tax sources have grown at an almost identical overall rate since 1981.
Restricting property taxes would likely put pressure on state income tax rates, since
pressure would increase for the state to fund local school and other expenditures. This
has been the experience of California and other states with severe property tax caps.



                           Income and Property Taxes
                         Have Grown Equally Since 1981
   Growth Index
   6.00
                                                                  Income
   5.00

   4.00
                                                                               Real Estate
   3.00

   2.00

   1.00
           81

           82

           83

           84

           85

           86

           87

           88

           89

           90

           91

           92

           93

           94

           95

           96

           97

           98

           99

           00

           01

           02

           03

           04
        19

        19

        19

        19

        19

        19

        19

        19

        19

        19

        19

        19

        19

        19

        19

        19

        19

        19

        19

        20

        20

        20

        20

        20
                                              Fiscal Year




Conclusion
Property tax revenue and local expenditure growth has been similar over time. Property
tax revenue is the main pillar of local government revenue, and thus is the main revenue
source for local government’s largest expenditure – public education, as well as law
enforcement, health and welfare, public works, and other local service needs. Placing
restraints on property tax revenue would inevitably lead to more reliance on the state for
public education and these other local expenditure needs. However, the localities that
rely the most on property tax revenue for public education and other services, are often
the same localities with the lowest levels of state support. In addition, property tax
reductions on only residential property tend to favor those localities with the greater
ability to shift the tax burden to commercial property.

One consequence of a property tax cap is that effective tax rates fall as properties
increase in value, resulting in higher tax burdens on lower value properties. One
potential consequence of reducing residential property tax revenue is a greater reliance on
commercial and business revenue, and apartment tenants. In addition, budget discipline

Fiscal Analytics, Ltd.                                                                  13
could be weakened since some residents would pay less than others for increased
services.

Evidence from states with severe restraints in place on property taxes demonstrates that
they lead to fiscal problems, arbitrary inequities, and detriments to economic progress.5
Some of the impacts seen in these states are listed below.

        Appraisal caps create inequities between otherwise similar taxpayers.
        Appraisal caps or homestead exemptions exempt a larger amount of higher priced
         home assessments, re-distributing the tax burden to lower income taxpayers.
        Appraisal caps bear no relation to the demand for public services caused by
         demographic shifts such as high growth, industrial development, or other factors.
        Appraisal caps or homestead exemptions on residential property tend to favor
         those localities with higher levels of commercial property.
        Appraisal caps can adversely impact bond ratings, further limiting local
         governments’ ability to respond to infrastructure needs.
        Studies show that property values are impacted by appraisal caps due to a
         reduction in service quality, particularly schools.
        Appraisal caps can distort economic development efforts by favoring retail
         development (generating sales taxes) over other development.
        Appraisal caps result in local governments becoming more dependent on state
         sources of revenue.

The income tax has grown as fast in Virginia as the property tax. An alternative
approach to property tax relief -- a “circuit breaker” using the income tax as an
administrative vehicle -- is used by a number of other states. In this approach, a
refundable tax credit is allowed for a percentage of property taxes paid, or exceeding a
certain percentage of income, with the percentage reduced as income rises. This
approach is an arguably fairer and more efficient way to reduce property tax burdens
because the state administers and funds the property tax relief program targeted to those
most in need.




5
 “The Impact of Potential Restraints on Local Government Activity (Appraisal Caps, Expenditure Limits,
and Revenue Limits) on the Economy of Texas, The Perryman Group, March 2005.

Fiscal Analytics, Ltd.                                                                              14
                  Table 1 - Estimated Local Spending on Education
                           Above the Required State Match

                                   FY 2004         FY 2004
                               Actual Local         Actual                            FY 2004
                              Expenditures State Aid Ed.             Est. Local Est. Local Spending
School Division          for Ed. Operations Distributions * LCI     Req. Match Above State Match
ACCOMACK                       $16,051,883    $19,871,260   .2884    $8,053,501         $7,998,382
ALBEMARLE                       78,224,851     22,681,990   .6054    34,798,978         43,425,873
ALLEGHANY                        9,224,277     11,352,990   .2683     4,162,918          5,061,359
AMELIA                           3,262,554      6,249,870   .3516     3,262,554                  -
AMHERST                         10,151,325     16,398,013   .2940     6,828,634          3,322,691
APPOMATTOX                       3,911,637      8,872,346   .2797     3,445,225            466,412
ARLINGTON                      241,013,178     22,628,658   .8000    90,514,632        150,498,546
AUGUSTA                         27,636,734     33,895,961   .3434    17,727,495          9,909,239
BATH                             6,629,518      1,047,255   .8000     4,189,019          2,440,499
BEDFORD                         25,348,223     27,845,243   .3714    16,451,994          8,896,230
BLAND                            1,760,500      4,048,911   .2827     1,595,744            164,756
BOTETOURT                       16,957,513     13,983,173   .4061     9,561,486          7,396,027
BRUNSWICK                        4,928,619      9,889,675   .2568     3,417,207          1,511,411
BUCHANAN                         7,161,006     16,187,506   .2788     6,257,732            903,274
BUCKINGHAM                       3,363,890      9,556,470   .2527     3,231,527            132,363
CAMPBELL                        20,505,135     29,598,443   .2768    11,328,607          9,176,527
CAROLINE                         9,669,130     11,933,209   .3109     5,383,884          4,285,245
CARROLL                          9,653,569     15,414,491   .3001     6,609,357          3,044,212
CHARLES CITY                     5,675,740      2,687,826   .4199     1,945,558          3,730,182
CHARLOTTE                        3,358,108      9,574,118   .2331     2,910,063            448,045
CHESTERFIELD                   182,869,204    152,303,603   .3785    92,754,487         90,114,717
CLARKE                           9,824,381      4,552,929   .5546     5,669,184          4,155,197
CRAIG                            1,661,491      2,706,359   .3356     1,367,029            294,462
CULPEPER                        21,007,635     18,098,119   .3919    11,663,629          9,344,006
CUMBERLAND                       2,747,257      5,256,348   .2943     2,192,069            555,188
DICKENSON                        5,806,454     10,868,534   .2492     3,607,404          2,199,050
DINWIDDIE                       10,765,078     15,797,794   .2844     6,278,497          4,486,581
ESSEX                            4,962,096      4,947,485   .4175     3,546,052          1,416,044
FAIRFAX                      1,314,730,267    199,870,876   .7489   596,110,312        718,619,955
FAUQUIER                        55,892,670     21,293,849   .6193    34,639,560         21,253,109
FLOYD                            5,303,047      7,431,460   .3251     3,579,742          1,723,306
FLUVANNA                        10,707,125     10,660,520   .3595     5,983,539          4,723,586
FRANKLIN                        20,230,908     22,393,518   .3882    14,209,159          6,021,749
FREDERICK                       48,560,454     33,982,176   .3794    20,774,794         27,785,660
GILES                            6,674,756      8,374,009   .2946     3,497,283          3,177,473
GLOUCESTER                      17,564,564     20,505,082   .3132     9,350,891          8,213,673
GOOCHLAND                       13,048,876      2,302,481   .8000     9,209,923          3,838,952
GRAYSON                          4,533,121      9,423,456   .2932     3,909,108            624,013
GREENE                           7,877,753      9,782,118   .3241     4,690,612          3,187,141
GREENSVILLE                      2,744,584      6,984,838   .2203     1,973,528            771,056
HALIFAX                         14,934,562     26,140,630   .2380     8,164,659          6,769,903


Fiscal Analytics, Ltd.                                                                          15
HANOVER                   64,759,813    42,663,029   .4539    35,460,078    29,299,734
HENRICO                  169,995,832   100,742,466   .4834    94,268,115    75,727,717
HENRY                     16,209,872    30,467,033   .2717    11,366,048     4,843,823
HIGHLAND                   1,284,051       962,151   .6274     1,284,051             -
ISLE OF WIGHT             17,280,156    14,760,675   .3695     8,650,388     8,629,768
JAMES CITY                46,898,134    14,312,235   .5988    21,361,332    25,536,802
KING GEORGE                9,869,527     9,508,775   .3700     5,584,519     4,285,008
KING QUEEN                 3,543,476     3,358,600   .3376     1,711,750     1,831,726
KING WILLIAM               5,937,435     6,762,955   .3482     3,612,858     2,324,577
LANCASTER                  6,765,186     2,721,751   .6498     5,050,239     1,714,947
LEE                        3,985,024    18,336,777   .1845     3,985,024             -
LOUDOUN                  316,306,372    63,878,325   .7220   165,899,822   150,406,550
LOUISA                    18,862,764     8,320,237   .5591    10,550,793     8,311,971
LUNENBURG                  3,525,997     7,626,637   .2626     2,715,968       810,029
MADISON                    5,817,206     6,128,209   .4194     4,426,750     1,390,456
MATHEWS                    3,904,652     3,810,333   .4474     3,084,949       819,703
MECKLENBURG               10,878,013    18,155,383   .3093     8,130,100     2,747,913
MIDDLESEX                  4,913,528     3,255,799   .5522     4,014,855       898,673
MONTGOMERY                30,666,003    29,066,468   .3877    18,404,491    12,261,513
NELSON                     8,218,086     5,646,408   .4664     4,935,316     3,282,770
NEW KENT                   8,104,225     7,313,106   .4177     5,245,895     2,858,330
NORTHAMPTON                5,006,437     7,989,416   .3555     4,406,885       599,552
NORTHUMBERLAND             5,958,545     3,296,974   .5955     4,853,765     1,104,779
NOTTOWAY                   2,986,953     9,435,363   .2431     2,986,953             -
ORANGE                    13,845,616    12,098,528   .4127     8,501,724     5,343,892
PAGE                       7,823,037    12,407,390   .3049     5,442,401     2,380,635
PATRICK                    5,357,522    10,121,425   .2859     4,052,255     1,305,267
PITTSYLVANIA              15,005,993    33,401,373   .2694    12,316,356     2,689,637
POWHATAN                  15,312,042    11,590,954   .3787     7,065,016     8,247,026
PRINCE EDWARD              5,897,581    10,288,500   .2906     4,214,601     1,682,980
PRINCE GEORGE             11,570,126    22,049,362   .2507     7,377,252     4,192,874
PRINCE WILLIAM           254,064,438   197,662,142   .4086   136,565,355   117,499,082
PULASKI                   11,563,512    16,380,560   .3074     7,270,263     4,293,249
RAPPAHANNOCK               6,037,968     1,793,639   .6905     4,001,640     2,036,328
RICHMOND                   3,652,560     3,931,066   .3421     2,044,107     1,608,453
ROANOKE                   54,883,657    41,260,519   .3926    26,669,213    28,214,444
ROCKBRIDGE                10,736,158     8,450,449   .4516     6,958,830     3,777,327
ROCKINGHAM                37,171,326    32,919,128   .3526    17,929,077    19,242,249
RUSSELL                    5,643,468    15,681,694   .2496     5,216,086       427,382
SCOTT                      4,748,428    15,933,405   .2115     4,273,830       474,598
SHENANDOAH                17,000,484    17,443,126   .3678    10,148,025     6,852,458
SMYTH                      7,427,860    19,239,052   .2355     5,926,484     1,501,376
SOUTHAMPTON                7,475,138    10,921,585   .2802     4,251,498     3,223,640
SPOTSYLVANIA              72,538,503    63,927,580   .3573    35,539,637    36,998,866
STAFFORD                  72,400,143    75,941,290   .3274    36,965,772    35,434,371
SURRY                      9,924,743     1,442,388   .8000     5,769,553     4,155,190
SUSSEX                     7,472,702     5,479,793   .2961     2,305,109     5,167,593
TAZEWELL                  10,647,500    27,617,917   .2626     9,835,184       812,315
WARREN                    14,363,838    15,372,128   .3704     9,043,577     5,320,261
WASHINGTON                17,301,031    23,738,890   .3489    12,720,778     4,580,253


Fiscal Analytics, Ltd.                                                             16
WESTMORELAND                     4,934,090        6,035,685   .3801       3,700,861      1,233,229
WISE                            11,780,833       25,976,522   .2062       6,747,744      5,033,089
WYTHE                            9,637,785       15,565,836   .3017       6,725,208      2,912,577
YORK                            38,122,863       34,463,474   .3548      18,951,706     19,171,157
ALEXANDRIA                     125,627,862       13,086,527   .8000      52,346,107     73,281,755
BRISTOL                          7,890,829        7,478,855   .3496       4,019,999      3,870,829
BUENA VISTA                      3,073,180        4,415,023   .2322       1,335,202      1,737,978
CHARLOTTESVILLE                 32,515,143       10,295,588   .6111      16,178,024     16,337,119
COLONIAL HEIGHTS                14,168,359        7,067,560   .4721       6,320,506      7,847,853
COVINGTON                        4,314,574        3,281,777   .3221       1,559,316      2,755,258
DANVILLE                        19,300,465       22,405,486   .2741       8,460,316     10,840,148
FALLS CHURCH                    21,801,038        2,164,772   .8000       8,659,087     13,141,951
FREDERICKSBURG                  14,729,347        4,029,008   .7005       9,423,439      5,305,909
GALAX                            3,273,512        4,475,353   .3239       2,144,012      1,129,500
HAMPTON                         61,105,392       84,681,796   .2521      28,544,298     32,561,094
HARRISONBURG                    21,828,803        9,439,625   .4804       8,727,474     13,101,329
HOPEWELL                         9,924,843       15,334,365   .2343       4,692,232      5,232,611
LYNCHBURG                       27,440,559       27,605,961   .3830      17,136,277     10,304,282
MARTINSVILLE                     7,133,848        9,545,575   .2678       3,491,266      3,642,581
NEWPORT NEWS                    75,868,753      111,164,172   .2598      39,017,093     36,851,661
NORFOLK                         91,417,230      128,784,018   .2632      46,004,280     45,412,950
NORTON                           1,615,437        2,851,259   .3411       1,476,043        139,394
PETERSBURG                      10,176,122       22,754,056   .2197       6,406,595      3,769,526
PORTSMOUTH                      28,485,840       66,629,666   .2100      17,711,683     10,774,157
RADFORD                          4,520,782        5,269,258   .3019       2,278,741      2,242,041
RICHMOND CITY                  131,617,856       73,125,769   .4265      54,382,111     77,235,745
ROANOKE CITY                    45,320,276       44,101,322   .3765      26,630,550     18,689,726
STAUNTON                         9,918,358        8,572,327   .3983       5,674,519      4,243,839
SUFFOLK                         29,984,983       45,823,033   .3012      19,750,855     10,234,127
VIRGINIA BEACH                 269,232,381      219,184,475   .3353     110,564,998    158,667,383
WAYNESBORO                      10,004,343        8,787,766   .3349       4,424,933      5,579,410
WILLIAMSBURG                     4,790,565        1,139,448   .8000       4,557,794        232,771
WINCHESTER                      21,949,869        8,787,935   .5473      10,624,336     11,325,533
FAIRFAX CITY                    23,619,068        2,761,086   .8000      11,044,344     12,574,724
FRANKLIN CITY                    4,302,831        5,754,409   .3033       2,505,113      1,797,718
CHESAPEAKE                     129,357,136      125,520,242   .3215      59,476,430     69,880,707
LEXINGTON                        2,225,620        1,746,649   .4380       1,361,267        864,352
EMPORIA                          2,818,518        3,736,984   .2931       1,549,455      1,269,063
SALEM                           16,928,408       10,376,561   .3905       6,648,150     10,280,258
BEDFORD CITY                     1,565,297        3,348,724   .3125       1,522,147         43,150
POQUOSON                         7,371,315        7,564,499   .3313       3,747,747      3,623,568
MANASSAS                        33,528,280       20,235,176   .4254      14,980,933     18,547,347
MANASSAS PARK                    9,333,655        8,516,600   .3661       4,918,642      4,415,013
COLONIAL BEACH                   1,147,394        2,108,064   .2696         778,113        369,281
WEST POINT                       3,147,901        2,900,651   .2622       1,030,836      2,117,065
                             5,147,327,865    3,261,899,514           2,577,472,925   2,569,854,940

* State aid net of sales tax distribution
Source: Table 15 of the Superintendents Annual Report for Virginia,
 http://www.doe.virginia.gov/VDOE/suptsmemos/2005/inf061a.pdf

Fiscal Analytics, Ltd.                                                                          17
                               Table 2
   Estimated Property Tax Rates Needed to Fund All Local Education
        Spending and Spending Above the Required State Match

                                                           FY 2004
                             Real Property Real Property Real Property Rate Needed Cents for Ed. Amt.
School Division              Taxes FY 2004 Rate 2004      Per penny to Fund All Ed. Above State Match
ACCOMACK                 $       11,546,908     57          $202,577        79             39
ALBEMARLE                        68,241,593     76          $897,916        87             48
ALLEGHANY                         4,750,461     66           $71,977       128             70
AMELIA                            3,292,473     52           $63,317        52              0
AMHERST                           8,501,623     61          $139,371        73             24
APPOMATTOX                        4,150,363     66           $62,884        62              7
ARLINGTON                       327,462,409     96         $3,418,188       71             44
AUGUSTA                          22,350,886     58          $385,360        72             26
BATH                              2,344,591     50           $46,892       141             52
BEDFORD                          27,302,704     65          $420,042        60             21
BLAND                             1,602,565     69           $23,226        76              7
BOTETOURT                        14,530,007     70          $207,572        82             36
BRUNSWICK                         3,175,144     60           $52,919        93             29
BUCHANAN                          7,084,881     49          $144,589        50              6
BUCKINGHAM                        3,800,598     58           $65,528        51              2
CAMPBELL                         12,182,057     52          $234,270        88             39
CAROLINE                          9,547,498     81          $118,602        82             36
CARROLL                           6,837,361     59          $115,887        83             26
CHARLES CITY                      3,588,964     82           $43,768       130             85
CHARLOTTE                         3,557,776     62           $57,383        59              8
CHESTERFIELD                    197,247,004    107         $1,843,430       99             49
CLARKE                            8,049,687     74          $108,780        90             38
CRAIG                             1,756,699     66           $26,617        62             11
CULPEPER                         21,059,488     89          $236,623        89             39
CUMBERLAND                        3,637,411     76           $47,861        57             12
DICKENSON                         4,695,837     60           $78,264        74             28
DINWIDDIE                         9,143,866     77          $118,752        91             38
ESSEX                             4,931,825     70           $70,455        70             20
FAIRFAX                       1,497,261,337    113        $13,250,100       99             54
FAUQUIER                         55,204,596     99          $557,622       100             38
FLOYD                             4,664,305     64           $72,880        73             24
FLUVANNA                          8,248,139     68          $121,296        88             39
FRANKLIN                         18,044,145     53          $340,456        59             18
FREDERICK                        30,337,798     73          $415,586       117             67
GILES                             3,987,640     72           $55,384       121             57
GLOUCESTER                       19,378,942     95          $203,989        86             40
GOOCHLAND                        15,458,104     70          $220,830        59             17
GRAYSON                           4,265,941     55           $77,563        58              8
GREENE                            7,139,277     84           $84,991        93             37
GREENSVILLE                       2,280,924     59           $38,660        71             20
HALIFAX                           6,582,002     42          $156,714        95             43

Fiscal Analytics, Ltd.                                                                       18
HANOVER                   62,528,377    86    $727,074     89    40
HENRICO                  202,459,619    94   $2,153,826    79    35
HENRY                     10,528,362    54    $194,970     83    25
HIGHLAND                   1,775,436    67     $26,499     48     0
ISLE OF WIGHT             15,307,141    77    $198,794     87    43
JAMES CITY                51,719,043    86    $601,384     78    42
KING GEORGE                8,395,995    77    $109,039     91    39
KING QUEEN                 2,592,160    58     $44,692     79    41
KING WILLIAM               6,289,063   108     $58,232    102    40
LANCASTER                  7,161,161    44    $162,754     42    11
LEE                        3,903,201    65     $60,049     66     0
LOUDOUN                  363,593,643   111   $3,275,618    97    46
LOUISA                    13,028,877    70    $186,127    101    45
LUNENBURG                  2,067,732    42     $49,232     72    16
MADISON                    6,106,807    76     $80,353     72    17
MATHEWS                    5,581,515    79     $70,652     55    12
MECKLENBURG                9,696,730    37    $262,074     42    10
MIDDLESEX                  5,555,586    48    $115,741     42     8
MONTGOMERY                29,210,040    67    $435,971     70    28
NELSON                     9,799,500    72    $136,104     60    24
NEW KENT                   8,838,311    76    $116,294     70    25
NORTHAMPTON                5,822,147    65     $89,571     56     7
NORTHUMBERLAND             7,467,748    61    $122,422     49     9
NOTTOWAY                   2,846,700    54     $52,717     57     0
ORANGE                    15,548,105    84    $185,096     75    29
PAGE                       7,352,449    67    $109,738     71    22
PATRICK                    4,561,594    50     $91,232     59    14
PITTSYLVANIA              13,562,973    55    $246,600     61    11
POWHATAN                  14,632,931    95    $154,031     99    54
PRINCE EDWARD              4,069,467    43     $94,639     62    18
PRINCE GEORGE             13,144,588    90    $146,051     79    29
PRINCE WILLIAM           329,869,000   107   $3,082,888    82    38
PULASKI                    9,914,722    62    $159,915     72    27
RAPPAHANNOCK               5,877,888    72     $81,637     74    25
RICHMOND                   2,638,093    54     $48,854     75    33
ROANOKE                   61,214,147   112    $546,555    100    52
ROCKBRIDGE                 9,777,834    69    $142,742     75    26
ROCKINGHAM                27,616,693    71    $388,968     96    49
RUSSELL                    4,922,960    60     $82,049     69     5
SCOTT                      4,525,999    73     $62,000     77     8
SHENANDOAH                15,574,518    68    $229,037     74    30
SMYTH                      6,375,730    63    $101,202     73    15
SOUTHAMPTON                5,694,426    67     $84,991     88    38
SPOTSYLVANIA              69,778,528    86    $811,378     89    46
STAFFORD                  83,730,265    97    $863,199     84    41
SURRY                      3,441,259    80     $43,016    231    97
SUSSEX                     2,921,917    65     $44,953    166   115
TAZEWELL                   9,175,068    60    $152,918     70     5
WARREN                    16,389,456    76    $215,651     67    25
WASHINGTON                14,039,410    60    $233,990     74    20


Fiscal Analytics, Ltd.                                            19
WESTMORELAND               6,480,227    66     $98,185     50    13
WISE                       7,427,516    57    $130,307     90    39
WYTHE                      7,145,849    54    $132,331     73    22
YORK                      40,105,209    82    $490,584     78    39
ALEXANDRIA               204,909,234   100   $2,059,389    61    36
BRISTOL                    7,394,731    98     $75,456    105    51
BUENA VISTA                2,261,539    80     $28,269    109    61
CHARLOTTESVILLE           32,749,762   109    $300,457    108    54
COLONIAL HEIGHTS          12,923,272   120    $107,694    132    73
COVINGTON                  1,572,652    66     $23,828    181   116
DANVILLE                  13,702,998    80    $171,287    113    63
FALLS CHURCH              22,193,369   108    $205,494    106    64
FREDERICKSBURG            17,631,907    89    $198,111     74    27
GALAX                      2,127,881    70     $30,398    108    37
HAMPTON                   80,029,280   125    $640,234     95    51
HARRISONBURG              11,969,561    62    $193,057    113    68
HOPEWELL                  10,543,386   120     $87,862    113    60
LYNCHBURG                 34,874,773   111    $314,187     87    33
MARTINSVILLE               5,478,389    94     $58,281    122    63
NEWPORT NEWS             105,618,003   127    $831,638     91    44
NORFOLK                  132,061,180   140    $943,294     97    48
NORTON                       942,983    70     $13,471    120    10
PETERSBURG                15,729,976   138    $113,985     89    33
PORTSMOUTH                47,754,081   142    $336,296     85    32
RADFORD                    4,357,246    70     $62,246     73    36
RICHMOND CITY            168,280,446   138   $1,219,424   108    63
ROANOKE CITY              55,223,231   121    $456,390     99    41
STAUNTON                  10,715,072   100    $107,151     93    40
SUFFOLK                   46,141,735   108    $427,238     70    24
VIRGINIA BEACH           338,509,761   122   $2,774,670    97    57
WAYNESBORO                 8,470,678    85     $99,655    100    56
WILLIAMSBURG               6,158,084    54    $114,039     42     2
WINCHESTER                11,682,681    63    $185,439    118    61
FAIRFAX CITY              32,229,655    90    $358,107     66    35
FRANKLIN CITY              3,363,700    90     $37,374    115    48
CHESAPEAKE               159,918,887   126   $1,269,198   102    55
LEXINGTON                  2,526,990    64     $39,484     56    22
EMPORIA                    2,188,900    84     $26,058    108    49
SALEM                     16,476,783   118    $139,634    121    74
BEDFORD CITY               2,462,067    82     $30,025     52     1
POQUOSON                   9,397,518   106     $88,656     83    41
MANASSAS                  37,971,502   115    $330,187    102    56
MANASSAS PARK             11,897,704   133     $89,456    104    49
COLONIAL BEACH             1,648,630    88     $18,734     61    20
WEST POINT                 1,159,743    60     $19,329    163   110




Fiscal Analytics, Ltd.                                            20
                                 Table 3
   Property Tax Rates Needed to Fund the JLARC Estimated State
  Shortfall in Tier 1/Board of Education Recommended SOQ Changes
                        for the 2004-06 biennium

                            JLARC/FA Est.      RE Cents to Fund
School Division          2004-06 Tier 1 & BOE JLARC Tier 1/BOE
ACCOMACK                     $4,958,202              12
ALBEMARLE                      6,763,252             4
ALLEGHANY                      2,922,134             20
AMELIA                         1,509,389             12
AMHERST                        4,286,117             15
APPOMATTOX                     2,209,744             18
ARLINGTON                      4,946,269             1
AUGUSTA                        9,515,193             12
BATH                            218,636              2
BEDFORD                        8,455,272             10
BLAND                           922,244              20
BOTETOURT                      3,854,781             9
BRUNSWICK                      2,339,762             22
BUCHANAN                       3,448,685             12
BUCKINGHAM                     2,201,262             17
CAMPBELL                       8,362,067             18
CAROLINE                       3,400,016             14
CARROLL                        3,889,573             17
CHARLES CITY                    698,799              8
CHARLOTTE                      2,258,892             20
CHESTERFIELD                  47,467,788             13
CLARKE                         1,241,011             6
CRAIG                           648,108              12
CULPEPER                       5,216,730             11
CUMBERLAND                     1,357,585             14
DICKENSON                      2,586,807             17
DINWIDDIE                      4,393,279             18
ESSEX                          1,327,925             9
FAIRFAX                       54,595,745             2
FAUQUIER                       5,450,340             5
FLOYD                          1,979,826             14
FLUVANNA                       2,940,252             12
FRANKLIN                       5,981,461             9
FREDERICK                      9,906,085             12
GILES                          2,417,044             22
GLOUCESTER                     5,679,834             14
GOOCHLAND                       592,880              1
GRAYSON                        2,151,209             14
GREENE                         2,459,803             14
GREENSVILLE                    1,651,655             21
HALIFAX                        6,075,706             19

Fiscal Analytics, Ltd.                                            21
HANOVER                  13,734,579   9
HENRICO                  32,310,624   8
HENRY                     7,865,190   20
HIGHLAND                   151,946    3
ISLE OF WIGHT             4,300,468   11
JAMES CITY                4,708,297   4
KING GEORGE               2,819,615   13
KING QUEEN                 712,314    8
KING WILLIAM              1,652,910   14
LANCASTER                  630,570    2
LEE                       4,090,252   34
LOUDOUN                  16,508,568   3
LOUISA                    2,579,690   7
LUNENBURG                 1,665,899   17
MADISON                   1,484,440   9
MATHEWS                    958,168    7
MECKLENBURG               4,423,677   8
MIDDLESEX                  848,534    4
MONTGOMERY                7,947,418   9
NELSON                    1,434,702   5
NEW KENT                  2,046,270   9
NORTHAMPTON               1,713,150   10
NORTHUMBERLAND             788,006    3
NOTTOWAY                  2,341,388   22
ORANGE                    3,314,004   9
PAGE                      3,290,774   15
PATRICK                   2,481,738   14
PITTSYLVANIA              9,132,678   19
POWHATAN                  3,632,583   12
PRINCE EDWARD             2,682,494   14
PRINCE GEORGE             6,159,393   21
PRINCE WILLIAM           52,027,664   8
PULASKI                   4,516,705   14
RAPPAHANNOCK               426,355    3
RICHMOND                  1,098,944   11
ROANOKE                  12,220,620   11
ROCKBRIDGE                2,016,089   7
ROCKINGHAM                9,589,060   12
RUSSELL                   3,997,148   24
SCOTT                     4,030,255   33
SHENANDOAH                4,992,848   11
SMYTH                     5,066,107   25
SOUTHAMPTON               2,828,773   17
SPOTSYLVANIA             19,795,783   12
STAFFORD                 23,429,384   14
SURRY                      286,643    3
SUSSEX                    1,277,116   14
TAZEWELL                  6,946,246   23
WARREN                    4,364,750   10
WASHINGTON                6,343,453   14


Fiscal Analytics, Ltd.                     22
WESTMORELAND                  1,662,437                 8
WISE                          7,072,918                 27
WYTHE                         4,015,606                 15
YORK                         11,153,932                 11
ALEXANDRIA                    2,868,333                 1
BRISTOL                       2,079,112                 14
BUENA VISTA                   1,164,255                 21
CHARLOTTESVILLE               2,230,460                 4
COLONIAL HEIGHTS              2,031,159                 9
COVINGTON                      800,930                  17
DANVILLE                      6,973,433                 20
FALLS CHURCH                   532,737                  1
FREDERICKSBURG                 978,878                  2
GALAX                         1,249,860                 21
HAMPTON                      23,147,683                 18
HARRISONBURG                  2,896,708                 8
HOPEWELL                      3,999,776                 23
LYNCHBURG                     7,230,164                 12
MARTINSVILLE                  2,527,206                 22
NEWPORT NEWS                 31,819,202                 19
NORFOLK                      34,438,294                 18
NORTON                         626,784                  23
PETERSBURG                    5,339,201                 23
PORTSMOUTH                   16,991,218                 25
RADFORD                       1,426,366                 11
RICHMOND CITY                18,747,411                 8
ROANOKE CITY                 10,813,830                 12
STAUNTON                      2,190,585                 10
SUFFOLK                      13,363,146                 16
VIRGINIA BEACH               68,011,576                 12
WAYNESBORO                    2,714,712                 14
WILLIAMSBURG                   201,654                  1
WINCHESTER                    2,262,325                 6
FAIRFAX CITY                   836,688                  1
FRANKLIN CITY                 1,308,893                 18
CHESAPEAKE                   37,004,257                 15
LEXINGTON                      490,866                  6
EMPORIA                        908,872                  17
SALEM                         3,210,458                 11
BEDFORD CITY                   815,546                  14
POQUOSON                      2,328,871                 13
MANASSAS                      5,401,972                 8
MANASSAS PARK                 1,964,954                 11
COLONIAL BEACH                 568,878                  15
WEST POINT                     763,579                  20
Total                    $906,111,366


* Total is equal to the midpoint of the JLARC estimated state shortfall in SOQ spending. FA estimated
each local amount based on their share of state total ADM and local composite index.

Fiscal Analytics, Ltd.                                                                            23
                                       Table 4
                   Analysis of 2004 Real Estate Assessment Survey
Cities              % Resid. % Comm. % Ag/Undev.   Counties     % Resid. % Comm. % Ag/Undev.
Alexandria            60.1%     39.9%      0.0%    Accomack       72.0%     10.7%      17.3%
Bedford               59.6%     40.0%      0.4%    Albemarle*     62.8%     16.7%      20.5%
Bristol               65.6%     33.4%      1.0%    Alleghany      59.9%     25.8%      14.3%
Buena Vista           75.7%     23.7%      0.6%    Amelia*        52.8%      5.4%      41.8%
Charlottesville       61.9%     38.1%      0.0%    Amherst        63.8%     15.3%      20.9%
Chesapeake            74.1%     23.9%      2.1%    Appomattox     59.2%     10.9%      29.8%
Colonial Heights      61.4%     38.6%      0.0%    Arlington      55.7%     44.3%       0.0%
Covington             56.3%     43.5%      0.2%    Augusta        67.2%     13.4%      19.4%
Danville              60.4%     39.6%      0.0%    Bath           41.2%      9.8%      49.0%
Emporia*              45.6%     54.4%      0.0%    Bedford        77.5%      4.5%      18.0%
Fairfax               65.0%     35.0%      0.0%    Bland*         46.2%      6.3%      47.4%
Falls Church*         71.2%     28.2%      0.0%    Botetourt*     68.7%     13.6%      17.7%
Franklin              61.9%     33.6%      4.5%    Brunswick*     57.6%      9.4%      33.1%
Fredericksburg        42.0%     56.5%      1.5%    Buchanan       30.7%     42.4%      26.9%
Galax                 56.3%     43.7%      0.0%    Buckingham*    49.4%      5.1%      45.5%
Hampton               70.9%     29.1%      0.0%    Campbell       64.9%     19.5%      15.6%
Harrisonburg          55.1%     44.9%      0.0%    Caroline       64.8%     11.0%      24.2%
Hopewell              66.2%     33.7%      0.1%    Carroll        62.7%     15.8%      21.5%
Lexington             65.6%     34.4%      0.0%    Charles City   92.5%      7.5%       0.0%
Lynchburg             63.5%     36.5%      0.0%    Charlotte*     47.6%      9.3%      43.2%
Manassas              69.3%     30.5%      0.2%    Chesterfield   75.3%     23.0%       1.7%
Manassas Park         83.3%     15.9%      0.8%    Clarke         54.2%      6.7%      39.1%
Martinsville          56.1%     43.9%      0.0%    Craig          57.5%      0.9%      41.5%
Newport News          59.9%     40.1%      0.0%    Culpeper       43.4%     42.2%      14.4%
Norfolk               64.7%     33.3%      2.0%    Cumberland     24.2%     31.3%      44.5%
Norton                49.0%     50.9%      0.1%    Dickenson      47.9%     46.5%       5.6%
Petersburg            59.2%     40.0%      0.7%    Dinwiddie*     56.9%     10.0%      33.0%
Poquoson              91.6%      8.1%      0.2%    Essex          62.0%     15.7%      22.3%
Portsmouth*           71.7%     26.8%      1.5%    Fairfax        77.9%     22.1%       0.0%
Radford               77.9%     21.0%      1.1%    Fauquier       70.0%     10.3%      19.7%
Richmond              63.4%     36.6%      0.0%    Floyd          50.4%      4.1%      45.5%
Roanoke               61.0%     38.9%      0.1%    Fluvanna       77.7%      1.4%      20.9%
Salem                 67.4%     32.5%      0.1%    Franklin*      77.0%      8.1%      15.0%
Staunton              76.0%     21.8%      2.3%    Frederick      78.3%     20.2%       1.4%
Suffolk               72.0%     18.7%      9.3%    Giles          70.5%     17.8%      11.7%
Virginia Beach        75.7%     23.9%      0.4%    Gloucester     80.4%     10.8%       8.9%
Waynesboro*           70.5%     28.4%      1.0%    Goochland      74.2%     17.2%       8.6%
Williamsburg          57.5%     42.5%      0.0%    Grayson*       54.3%      3.9%      41.7%
Winchester            59.4%     34.9%      5.7%    Greene         71.8%      5.1%      23.1%




Fiscal Analytics, Ltd.                                                              24
Counties           % Resid. % Comm. % Ag/Undev.            Counties          % Resid. % Comm. % Ag/Undev.
Greensville          51.4%     17.3%      31.3%            Rockbridge*         55.6%      8.2%      36.2%
Halifax              51.7%     19.9%      28.4%            Rockingham          62.0%     14.5%      23.4%
Hanover              71.9%     18.1%      10.0%            Russell             61.4%     17.5%      21.1%
Henrico              66.4%     32.5%       1.0%            Scott*              59.0%     12.9%      28.1%
Henry                64.5%     28.1%       7.4%            Shenandoah          67.3%     14.4%      18.3%
Highland             75.2%      7.7%      17.1%            Smyth*              63.1%     21.6%      15.3%
Isle of Wight        68.7%     13.6%      17.7%            Southampton         51.6%      8.1%      40.3%
James City           74.2%     23.0%       2.8%            Spotsylvania        77.2%     17.6%       5.2%
King & Queen         54.1%      4.1%      41.7%            Stafford*           78.0%     16.5%       5.5%
King George          72.1%     11.0%      16.9%            Surry*              51.1%      5.4%      43.5%
King William         75.3%     14.6%      10.1%            Sussex              41.9%     13.0%      45.1%
Lancaster            83.7%      7.6%       8.8%            Tazewell*           60.8%     26.7%      12.5%
Lee                  60.7%     16.4%      22.9%            Warren              73.9%     14.9%      11.1%
Loudoun              70.2%     24.2%       5.6%            Washington*         68.8%     13.4%      17.8%
Louisa*              71.3%      4.7%      24.0%            Westmoreland        76.3%      6.8%      17.0%
Lunenburg            47.2%      8.3%      44.5%            Wise                59.1%     36.0%       5.0%
Madison              53.7%      3.9%      42.4%            Wythe*              61.4%     17.6%      21.1%
Mathews*             88.4%      4.5%       7.1%            York                79.6%     17.5%       2.9%
Mecklenburg          63.9%     16.8%      19.3%
Middlesex            82.1%      6.3%      11.5%
Montgomery           65.6%     26.8%       7.6%
Nelson               67.8%      2.9%      29.3%
New Kent*            68.5%     10.2%      21.3%
Northampton*         68.6%     10.0%      21.4%
Northumberland       85.4%      3.1%      11.5%
Nottoway             43.7%     54.1%       2.2%
Orange               71.0%      7.3%      21.7%
Page                 84.1%     15.9%       0.0%
Patrick              60.7%     10.8%      28.5%
Pittsylvania*        70.3%      8.0%      21.6%
Powhatan             79.2%      3.6%      17.2%
Prince Edward*       53.0%     21.9%      25.0%
Prince George        71.4%     13.3%      15.3%
Prince William       81.8%     16.2%       1.9%
Pulaski              68.8%     20.2%      10.9%
Rappahannock         33.2%     18.9%      47.9%
Richmond             62.1%     12.6%      25.3%
Roanoke              79.7%     16.6%       3.7%


Source: 2004 Assessment Survey, Virginia Association of Assessing Officers
Note: Apartments are included in “Commercial” category.
* 2003 data from Tax Dept.




Fiscal Analytics, Ltd.                                                                           25

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: Texas State Property Tax Rate Caps and Appraisal Rates document sample