Legislature Home | Links to the World | Help | Advanced Search

House of Representatives > House Research > Property Taxes

Property Tax Simulations

The House Research Department releases property tax simulation results from time-to-time throughout the year. [Read the House Research policy on the release of computer simulation results.] The results posted on this web site will generally be displayed at the regional level. [View maps showing the regions as defined for House Research simulations.]

Most of the information available on property tax simulations are PDF documents that must be viewed through Adobe Acrobat, which can be downloaded for free.

Find out how to read and interpret the simulation results.

Simulation Results Currently Available for Viewing

Simulation	Date	Description
9A6 [PDF]	1/7/10	Final Pay 2008 vs. Final Pay 2009 (corrected)
8A4 [PDF]	1/8/10	Final Pay 2007 vs. Final Pay 2008 (corrected)
9F3 [PDF]	6/18/09	Actual Pay 2009 vs. Projected Pay 2010: Governor's Unallotment (Version 1)
9F1 [PDF]	5/16/09	Actual Pay 2009 vs. Projected Pay 2010: Governor's Proposal
9E1 [PDF]	5/14/09	Actual Pay 2009 vs. Projected Pay 2010: Current Law
8G1 [PDF]	9/18/08	Actual Pay 2008 vs. Projected Pay 2009: End-of-session Tax and Education Finance Bills
8C2 [PDF]	4/19/08	Actual Pay 2008 vs. Projected Pay 2009: Current Law
7A5 [PDF]	9/27/07	Final Pay 2006 vs. Final Pay 2007 (Corrected)
7G8 [PDF]	6/20/07	Projected Pay 2008: Current Law vs. Projected Pay 2008: Omnibus Tax Bill (H.F. 2268)
7G7 [PDF]	6/20/07	Actual Pay 2007 vs. Projected Pay 2008: Omnibus Tax Bill (H.F. 2268)
7F7 [PDF]	4/21/07	Projected Pay 2008: Current Law vs. Projected Pay 2008: House Tax Bill & E-12 Bill
7F6 [PDF]	4/21/07	Actual Pay 2007 vs. Projected Pay 2008: House Tax & E-12 bills (without new refunds)
7F6 Supplement [PDF]	4/21/07	Actual Pay 2007 vs. Projected Pay 2008: House Tax & E-12 bills (with new refunds)
7E1 [PDF]	3/21/07	Actual Pay 2007 vs. Projected Pay 2008: Governor's Proposal
7E2 [PDF]	3/21/07	Actual Pay 2008: Current Law vs. Projected Pay 2008: Governor's Proposal
7C2 [PDF]	3/13/07	Actual Pay 2007 vs. Projected Pay 2008: Current Law
6F1 [PDF]	10/5/06	Actual Pay 2006 vs. Projected Pay 2007: End-of-session 2006
6A5 [PDF]	8/18/06	Final Pay 2005 vs. Final Pay 2006
5A4 [PDF]	9/19/05	Final Pay 2004 vs. Final Pay 2005
4C6 [PDF]	12/29/04	Final Pay 2003 (Revised 12/29/04) vs. Final Pay 2004 (Revised 12/29/04)
4B1 [PDF]	6/15/04	Preliminary Payable 2004 vs. Preliminary Pay 2004: Fiscal Disparities Program eliminated
3G1 [PDF]	8/26/03	Final Pay 2002 vs. Final Pay 2003
3B3 [PDF]	3/22/03	Final Pay 2001 vs. Preliminary Pay 2003
2A7 [PDF]	8/15/02	Final Pay 2001 vs. Final Pay 2002
2A6 [PDF]	5/9/02	Preliminary Pay 2002 under previous law (Revised) vs. Preliminary Pay 2002: Current law
1W3 [PDF]	7/25/01	Preliminary Pay 2001 vs. Projected Pay 2002: Final Tax and K-12 bills
1W4 [PDF]	7/25/01	Projected Pay 2002: Previous Law vs. Projected Pay 2002: Final Tax and K-12 bills
1H2 [PDF]	4/25/01	Preliminary Pay 2001 v. Projected Pay 2002: Current Law (Revised)
1X1 [PDF]	9/18/01	Final Pay 2000 vs. Final Pay 2001
00P2 [PDF]	10/24/00	Final Pay 1999 vs. Final Pay 2000 (corrected)
99M2 [PDF]	9/14/99	Final Pay 1998 vs. Final Pay 1999
98V1 [PDF]	11/20/98	Final Pay 1997 vs. Final Pay 1998

Computer Simulation Policy

Simulations are available for:

• School finances    Aid and levy by spending category by school district
• Aids to local governments    Aid received by county, city, or town
• Income tax burdens    Tax burden by income class and filing status
• Property tax burdens    Tax burden by property type and geographic area

Policies concerning computer simulation modeling

Lead time. It is difficult to say how much lead time is required to run a simulation, because it depends to a great degree on the complexity of the proposal compared to current law and on the availability of extra data that might be required to properly model the proposal.

Confidentiality of proposal under development. An author of a proposal may request simulations while a proposal is under development. These simulations are treated as confidential between the developer of the proposal and the analyst(s).

Confidentiality of public proposal. Once a proposal becomes public, whether by being introduced as a bill, through a press release, etc., any House member may ask to have it modeled, or House Research may model it at its own initiative if it is thought to be of general interest. Oftentimes, the simulation results will be posted on the House Research web site.

Special confidentiality policy (aids to local governments and property tax models). When a simulation of a public proposal is requested, the simulation results are distributed as follows:

• First: Results are given to the House author, if there is one (even if the simulation was not requested by the author). The author may disseminate the simulation results at any time.
• Within 24 hours: Results are given to the requestor. Shortly thereafter, the results will be disseminated more broadly if they are thought to be of general interest, such as by posting them on the House Research Department web site.
• Exception: The delay periods may be shortened or eliminated if the proposal is being heard in a House committee or on the House floor within 24 hours.
• Others may request simulations that are variations of the basic proposal, or may request additional analyses of a proposal, and the author would not automatically get a copy of these simulations or analyses.

Level of detail (city aid model). Although results are provided on a city-by-city basis, the information is generally grouped by city type (i.e., center cities, older suburbs, regional centers, small cities, etc.). These groupings make it easier to generalize about the impacts of aid proposals on different kinds of cities. Printouts are also available with cities grouped geographically if specifically requested.

Level of detail (property tax simulation model). Generally, simulation results are disseminated at the regional level (the state divided into 28 geographic regions). Simulation results may be requested at a finer geographic level (individual cities, counties or school districts) in certain situations. For the 2005 legislative session:

Reason for presenting simulations at a regional level. In addition to keeping the printouts to a reasonable size, the assumptions used in making future year projections are more “robust” at a regional level than they are at a finer geographic level. The levy and valuation projections, which are developed for each jurisdiction, are based on fiscal and demographic information and standard assumptions developed in conjunction with Department of Revenue and Senate staff. We do not take into account special circumstances that might affect projections in individual jurisdictions.

Although not encouraged, we will model a proposal at the specific jurisdiction level when the comparison is between current law and a proposed alternative when both are modeled on property taxes payable in 2006. That is because the underlying (possibly faulty) levy and valuation projections are affecting both “sides” of the comparison equally, allowing the proposal’s effects to be isolated from the flaws in the underlying levy and valuation projections.

How to Read and Interpret Simulation Results

The property tax printouts published by the House Research Department display the results of an effort to simulate, or imitate, the behavior of Minnesota's property tax system. While the Department strives to make the property tax simulations accurate, bear in mind that the simulations are estimates. Generally the results are most accurate on a statewide level, and tend to be less accurate as the jurisdiction under scrutiny gets smaller.

Each set of printouts is organized so as to compare conditions under two situations. One situation is called the "baseline," the other is called the "alternative." These two situations are defined at the top of each page of the printout. All figures in the tables are expressed in $1,000's, except for the tables pertaining to sample homesteads.

• The baseline generally shows results under current law for a certain year.
• The alternative shows results for a succeeding year under current law or for a proposed change in the law.
• The printout also shows the difference (change) in conditions between the baseline and the alternative, in dollar amounts and percentage change.
• The baseline or alternative may also be differentiated by the availability of data for the year. "Final" simulations are based upon final data reported to the Department of Revenue by the counties. "Preliminary" results are based on data reported by the counties in preliminary form, along with a few assumptions related more to the distribution of taxes than to the absolute level of taxes. "Projected" results are based on data and assumptions that represent "best guesses."

Each printout page displays results of the simulation for a geographic area, which may be the state, a region [View region map], a county, or an individual city. The box at the upper right of each page names the area. The following information describes the layout of those pages in detail.

The top center of the page defines the baseline and alternative.

The MARKET VALUE, NET TAX and EFFECTIVE TAX RATE show the change in property value, change in tax burden, and relationship between tax burden and market value for each property type.

The change in net tax burden is of interest to legislators, both for all property in the area and for particular property classes such as ag homestead or commercial/industrial. At the bottom of the table, the total burden change for the jurisdiction is shown, both including and excluding tax increment financing.

LEVIES

[Four tables in center of page] LEVIES for the baseline and alternative proposals are shown for each type of taxing jurisdiction (county, city/town, school district, etc.). The LOCAL LEVY is the portion of the jurisdiction's levy levied against local taxpayers. The FISCAL DISPARITIES DISTRIBUTION is the levy received by the jurisdiction(s) from the areawide pool. The TOTAL LEVY is the sum of the local levy and the fiscal disparities distribution levy. The next line sums state Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA), Local Government Aid (LGA) and Disparity Reduction Aid accruing to the jurisdiction(s).

TAX BURDENS ON TYPICAL HOMESTEADS

[Two tables at bottom of page] These tables show the effect of a proposal on four typical homesteads in the area. The tables show tax burdens on the average value home for the area, as well as homes with values one-third above and below the average, and on a home with twice the average value.

The area's average TOTAL TAX CAPACITY TAX RATE is used to compute the tax burdens on these parcels. For this reason, the table accurately portrays only the typical tax change on homesteads of the values indicated. The tax change on the average valued home is not the same as the average tax change on all homesteads (which can be accurately determined from the net tax burden table above).

NOTE: The simulations are estimates only. House Research strives to make property tax simulations accurate, but simulations are only approximations of reality. They depend upon judgments about how much local government officials will decide to levy, which are highly speculative. Generally, the results are most accurate on a statewide level, and tend to be less accurate as the jurisdiction under scrutiny gets smaller.