HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.10.24 Attachment
1 Focus | September 2023
Locally Assessed Property Values
Fail to Keep Up with the market
ith residential property values rocketing upward in
recent years, the gap between local property tax
assessments and market values in Wisconsin is now
the largest seen in recent memory. That means that
when reassessments do occur, many property owners
will experience huge increases in the assessed value of
their property.
In most cases, this massive correction will not result in
the huge increase in property taxes that many alarmed
homeowners expect. Nevertheless, state data show that
more than 800 municipalities in the state have
assessed values for the collective properties within their
borders that are lower than 80% of their market value –
the largest gap since at least 2011 and likely much
longer. That deserves the attention of both the public
and policymakers because it raises concerns about the
fairness of our overall tax system. While every property
in a community being equally under-assessed would not
necessarily lead to an unfair distribution of property
taxes, stark divergence from market values may mean
that certain neighborhoods or classes of property are
more likely now to be paying more or less than their fair
share.
In one bright spot, there is at least some evidence that
some communities are trying to catch their assessed
property values up to market values. Further data show
that 9.5% of Wisconsin municipalities completed a full
or exterior revaluation of all property within their
boundaries in 2022, the highest mark in at least the
last decade.
In this brief, we examine how assessed and market
values for Wisconsin property have drifted apart, how
assessments work, and how the state is unique when it
comes to which level of government is responsible for
property assessment. The data in this report come from
the Wisconsin Department of Revenue (DOR) and
stretch from 2011 through 2022.
Assessed Values Fall Behind Market
DOR tracks the assessment ratio – the assessed value
of property divided by its market value – for each
municipality in the state. This ratio essentially shows
how close each community is to assessing property
accurately. The closer the ratio is to 100%, the smaller
the gap is between assessed value and market value.
These ratios can be affected when property values
change rapidly because of a recession, economic
expansion, or other dramatic event like the pandemic.
In 2022 and again in 2023, total equalized property
values (or estimated market values) in Wisconsin rose
W
A post-pandemic boom in residential property values means that in 2022 many properties were assessed at far
below market value. As many municipalities seek to catch up with the rising market, property owners may be in
for a surprise and there may be inequities between different neighborhoods and classes of property. Overall, this
situation suggests a need to monitor and possibly rethink how property assessment is handled in Wisconsin.
2 Focus | September 2023
by more than 13% - the two largest increases on a
percentage basis in the last four decades.
In 2022, 811 (42.5%) of the state’s 1,906
municipalities with available data had assessment
ratios below 80%, and another 592 (31.1%) had ratios
between 80% and 90% (see Figure 1 on the previous
page). Every county in the state had at least one
municipality with a ratio below 80%, and in all but two
counties (Racine and Taylor), a majority of
municipalities were below 90%.
State law requires that property is assessed within 10%
(in other words, between 90% and 110%) of market
value at least once every five years; when a municipality
misses this mark, the state intervenes and issues a
notice of non-compliance, and triggers a state-
supervised assessment if the municipality is out of the
target range for a sixth straight year. In 2018, just three
municipalities did not hit that range within the five-year
time window, with all three assessing property below
90% of market value in each year from 2014 to 2018.
By 2020, that number rose to 16, and in 2022, 28
municipalities had been out of range for five straight
years. Data for 2023 is incomplete, but there already
appear to be at least 50 municipalities that will not
meet the state standard.
Chronic under-assessment was not always the norm. As
recently as 2018, more than four in five Wisconsin
municipalities assessed property at rates between 90%
and 110% of market value, and from 2011 to 2018,
fewer than one out of every 100 municipalities had
ratios below 80%. As Wisconsin recovered from the
Great Recession and housing values began to rise from
their plunge during the previous years, 91.8% of the
state’s municipalities were within 90% to 110% of their
market value in 2016, a high mark after a stretch where
a handful of communities were also above 110%.
However, as the recovery has continued and the
pandemic significantly raised the market value of
housing, the number of municipalities in the state-
mandated range has now fallen in six straight years.
How Property Assessment Works in
Wisconsin
Accurate assessments of the value of homes and
business properties in the state are an essential tool to
ensure they are not paying too much or too little in
taxes. The local assessment of individual properties is
used to calculate what share of the overall levy in a
municipality is paid by an individual property owner.
Though counties technically have statutory authority to
conduct property assessments in Wisconsin (via
approval of at least 60% of the county board),
municipalities traditionally have assumed this
responsibility. Bigger cities – including all 10 of the
largest in the state – tend to employ an in-house
municipal assessor or team of assessors, while most
other municipalities contract with a private assessor or
assessment firm. Many of those firms handle
assessments for more than one municipality and often
for neighboring jurisdictions.
Wisconsin is fairly unique in conducting assessments at
the municipal level. The only exception is manufacturing
property, which is assessed across the entire state by
DOR. According to data from the Lincoln Institute of
Land Policy, as of 2020, most states assessed property
at the county level; in the Midwest, many states also
allow bigger municipalities to conduct their own
assessments (see Figure 2 on the following page).
This approach means that Wisconsin municipalities –
many of them quite small – must bear the costs
associated with assessment services. For example,
officials from the city of Rhinelander (population: 7,800)
say a full revaluation would cost nearly $159,000; the
expense also makes it more difficult for the city to
comply with a state program aimed at limiting local
spending. As a result, financial considerations can
impact not only the decision on whether to employ in-
house staff or contract for assessment services, but
also decisions on how frequently to conduct and pay for
revaluations and how to carry them out.
There are four ways to arrive at a community’s assessed
value. A “maintenance” assessment looks only at major
changes to assessed values from the year prior,
including new construction, changes in zoning or
property classification (such as commercial versus
residential), and demolitions. This is the easiest and
most common assessment type, but it may yield the
biggest divergences from market values when property
values are increasing quickly. An “interim market
update” is similar, but requires an assessor to analyze
neighborhoods, property types, and market trends to
determine whether a community can keep a similar
assessed value to the prior year or revalue closer to the
market.
3 Focus | September 2023
On the other side of the spectrum, a “full revaluation”
requires an assessor to inspect the interior and exterior
of every property in a municipality, and an “exterior
revaluation” is similar but does not require photos,
sketches, or an interior inspection. Both of these kinds
of property assessments are intended to bring a
community’s overall assessment closer to full market
value.
DOR data show that from 2011 to 2022, 377
municipalities (20% of the total) only conducted
maintenance assessments and an additional 772 (41%)
that only conducted an interim market update or
exterior revaluation. That’s despite a DOR
recommendation that municipalities conduct a full
revaluation at least once every 10 years. Just 39%, or
735, municipalities conducted a revaluation over the
11-year span.
harmonizing property values across
communities
One more step is needed to ensure fair property taxes: a
system for uniformly valuing properties across different
communities. Without this additional safeguard, the
residents of two different municipalities that lie within
the same county or school district could end up paying
too much in county or K-12 property taxes because their
property is overvalued compared to parcels in the
neighboring community.
To prevent this, the state of Wisconsin equalizes values
across municipalities in an effort to make them uniform
in all jurisdictions. DOR’s equalization process draws on
sales analyses, property appraisals, local reports, and
other factors to calculate the full market value of the
property in each community.
In theory, if a city assessed its property at 90% of
market value according to its assessment ratio and a
neighboring suburb assessed its property at 80% of
market value, the equalization process would bring both
up to 100%. However, equalized values are only
calculated for all property in a municipality, not for
individual parcels. So they do not replace the need for
accurate assessments of each parcel.
Higher assessments do not lead to
larger tax levies
Municipal officials say property owners often raise
concerns that their local governments are increasing
their property tax assessments in order to hike the
overall levy on taxpayers. That is not really the case in
general and particularly in Wisconsin, where the state
limits increases in municipal operating levies to the rate
of net new construction in each community.
In fact, local property taxes are set by governments
independently from the property assessment process. A
local unit of government – a municipality, school
4 Focus | September 2023
district, or county – will set an overall property tax levy
amount and then divvy up that amount proportionately
by parcel within its boundaries. Counties and school
districts also set their levies within their own state limits
and then use equalized property values to ensure that
their overall levies are fairly split among the
communities within their borders.
In other words, the amount of revenue that a local
government receives from property taxes is determined
by the levy, not property assessments. A rising
assessment for a given parcel only leads to greater
property taxes for its owner if the increase in the
assessment is greater than the average change for all
properties in the community.
Is Municipal Property Assessment a
Problem?
In theory, out-of-date local assessments may not lead to
an unfair system. Because DOR equalizes property
values for tax purposes, so long as all properties in a
municipality are similarly under- or over-valued, property
owners would be paying their fair share of the full levy.
However, the further each community is from assessing
its property at full market value, the more problems can
arise.
Within a municipality, if two neighborhoods were
assessed differently, then this could lead to residents in
one neighborhood paying an outsized share of the
property tax and the other underpaying. Especially in
areas that are growing quickly – such as the Madison
suburbs – a newly-built or growing neighborhood that
would have property reassessed frequently could pay an
outsized share in this current market, while existing
neighborhoods that have not undergone a recent
revaluation could underpay.
Another issue that can arise is a difference in
assessment ratios across classes of property.
Municipalities are responsible for assessing all classes
of property such as commercial and residential, and
assessors employ different metrics to value each. If
assessments are closer to market value for one class of
property than another, then homeowners could end up
paying less than business owners, or vice versa.
To examine the extent to which commercial and
residential property assessment ratios are diverging, we
looked at 2017 and 2022 ratios in all 160 cities,
villages, and towns in five counties: two large (Dane and
Milwaukee), two mid-sized (Sheboygan and St. Croix),
and one small (Oneida).
As Figure 3 on the previous page shows, the median
assessment ratio in 2017 for commercial property
across all 160 communities was 96.9%, whereas for
residential property it was 95.8%. In just 26 – or 16.3%
– of those municipalities were the two classes of
5 Focus | September 2023
property assessed at ratios at least 10 percentage
points apart. In other words, residential and commercial
property owners were generally being treated equally.
The data from 2022 paint a different picture. The
median assessment ratio for commercial property in the
same communities dropped to 90.6% - still within the
state’s target range, but noticeably lower than five years
earlier.
The median assessment ratio for residential properties,
however, dropped to 82.9%. The number of
municipalities with commercial and residential
assessment ratios separated by at least 10 percentage
points nearly tripled to 71, or 44.4% of the 160
communities. Commercial property was assessed at
least 10 percentage points higher than residential in 59
of those communities, meaning that commercial
property owners appeared to be overpaying property
taxes relative to homeowners.
Policy Implications
Property taxes for individual parcels are determined not
by the value of that individual property, but by its value
as a share of all property within a given community.
Because of that, if and when property owners in
Wisconsin see their assessed values increasing
significantly now or in the near future, there is not
necessarily cause for alarm. As it turns out, other
parcels may be increasing in value by as much or even
more. With more and more communities seeing
assessed values fall far behind fair market rates, these
kinds of revaluations and increases in assessed values
are likely needed in many parts of the state.
That said, issues can emerge when property values
either spike (as they have recently) or fall precipitously
(as they are apt to do in a recession). When more local
assessments are inaccurate or out of date, there is a
greater risk that different neighborhoods and classes of
property could be paying too much or too little in taxes.
The state also has a harder job equalizing values across
communities.
Given the long list of other local priorities, assigning
local officials the additional task of conducting or
procuring an assessment may mean that revaluations
are not happening as regularly as they should, at least
in times of rapid market changes. State and local
policymakers should monitor these challenges and
perhaps even consider ways to arrive at more accurate
and up-to-date assessments, particularly if assessments
fail to catch up with market values in the next year or
two.
This could mean looking at giving a greater role in
assessments to counties, which particularly in rural
areas might have the budgets and economies of scale
to conduct more regular revaluations. However, the cost
savings would likely be modest and some county
officials might also question whether they have the
necessary funding and expertise. Lawmakers and the
DOR may also wish to consider either higher standards
for local assessment or greater efforts to ensure
compliance with existing standards.
In short, policymakers should continue to monitor
assessment ratios, given that the real estate market
has been the hottest in recent memory. If in the coming
years municipalities remain unable to accurately assess
property values, officials could give greater thought to
changing the overall structure under which
assessments are conducted in the state to ensure each
property owner in Wisconsin receives an accurate
assessment of the value of their parcel and an
equitable tax bill.