Browsing by Subject "Property taxes"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Iron Range Fiscal Disparities Study
    (2014) Minnesota Department of Revenue
    This document examines disparities in the property tax base in counties and townships across Minnesota’s Iron Range communities, including coastal regions in the Sea Grant study area. There is no mention of water resources in this document, with the exception of cabins. Key points are reproduced below. “The concept of sharing commercial, industrial, and utility property tax base among the jurisdictions of a region is called “fiscal disparities.” This study examines the fiscal disparities in the Iron Range in northern Minnesota. The Iron Range Fiscal Disparities (IFRD) program, established in 1996, was set up to share commercial-industrial tax-base in the region known as the ‘taconite assistance area.’ Taconite assistance area tax base and Fiscal Disparities program have grown since 2001. Since 2001 the taconite assistance area has experienced tax base growth at twice the rate of the state as a whole (80% and 42% respectively). At the same time the area’s population has been unchanged while the state’s population has grown by 8%. Strong growth in commercial, industrial and utility values have caused the Iron Range Fiscal Disparities tax base sharing pool to grow by almost 600% since 2001. The amount of the area’s total tax base in the fiscal disparities pool is 3.7%, up from 1% in 2001.”
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Transportation Investment and Economic Development in Minnesota Counties
    (Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, 2015-04) Zhao, Zhirong Jerry
    This project examines the link between accumulated transportation capital stocks in Minnesota counties and their annual property tax revenues using longitudinal data in the 1995-2011 period. We separated the effects of two different transportation capital stocks, one associated with load roads and the other with trunk highways. In addition, we considered not only the internal effect of transportation investments within a county, but also the spillover effect due to transportation investments made in neighboring counties. Estimations from panel-data regressions show that local-road capital stocks within a county have a positive effect on its property tax revenues, with an elasticity of 0.093, but much of the benefits may be the outcome of a zero-sum game due to inter-local competition of property tax bases. Trunk-highway capital stocks within a county also show a positive effect, with an elasticity of 0.013. The spillover effect of trunk-highway development is even higher: The average level of trunk-highway capital stocks in neighboring counties has a positive elasticity of 0.030 on a county’s property tax revenues. Applying the estimations to the county data in FY2010, we calculated the ROI (return of investment) of additional transportation investments on property tax bases. The average ROI on the growth of EMV (Estimated Market Values) within a county is about 1.254 for local roads, and about 0.871 for trunk highways. The regional impact would be reduced for local roads due to the inter-local competition, but significantly amplified for trunk highways due to spillover benefits.