AN INFORMATION REPORT 

TlX AND EXPENDITURE LIMITS 

ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 

Center for Urban Policy 

and the Environment 

Indiana University 

Ad v i so ry Co m m is s ion 

on Intergovernmental Relations 

March 1995 M-194 
U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations 

800 K Street, NW, Suite 450 South Building 

Washington, DC 20575 

Phone: (202) 653-5540 

Fax: (202) 653-5429 

.. 

11 
States have imposed a variety of statutory 

and constitutional limitations on local fiscal 

autonomy. This report focuses on general tax 

and expenditure limitations applied to counties, municipalities, and school districts. These 

types of limitations exist in 46 states and are 

designed ostensibly to (1) control and reduce 

property taxes, (2) control the growth of government and public spending, and (3) improve 

fiscal accountability. 

This report presents the results of an 

extensive study of local tax and expenditure 

limitations (TELs) imposed by states. The 

study emphasizes limitation design, amount of 

allowable growth, affected local governments, 

circumvention mechanisms, length of implementation, and significant alterations. 

TYPES OF LIMITATIONS 

There are six basic types of limitations. 

Overall property tax rate limits 

apply to all local governments. 

Specific property tax rate limits, the 

most widely used limit, apply to specific types of local governments or 

specific functions (which were not 

considered in this report). 

Property tax levy limits (revenue 

limitations) are the second most common TEL. 

. Limits on general revenue or 

expenditure increases are the least 

common form of TEL and are among 

the newest. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

... 

111 

Limits on assessment increases 

restrict the growth in assessments and 

are also among the newest forms. 

Full disclosure (truth-in-taxation) 

requirements make taxpayers aware 

of levy increase proposals and give 

them an opportunity to participate in 

public hearings. 

These limitations vary in the extent to 

which they restrict local government taxing or 

spending. Most include some procedure for 

circumventing the limitation if it becomes necessary to do so. 

EFFECTS OF TAX AND EXPENDITURE 

LIMITATIONS 

Studies have shown that tax and expenditure limitations have had no effect on the size 

of government, but have had considerable 

impact on its composition. Limits have been 

reported to: 

(1) Reduce reliance on traditional local 

government revenue sources and on 

tax sources for local own-source revenue, and 

(2) Increase local reliance on state aid and 

the general level of state expenditure 

and revenue responsibility, particularly for education and highways. 

TELs have led to greater use of fees and revenue sources other than the local property tax 

(e.g., income taxes, business property taxes, 

and sales taxes). 
Some researchers have found that limitations may be leading to the creation of a more 

centralized public sector that is possibly less 

responsive to local preferences, more reliant at 

the local level on nontax sources of revenue, 

and a bit less accommodating to the needs of 

dependent populations. These effects appear to 

be increasing over time. 

Increased reliance on user fees and other 

narrow revenue sources, for example, may 

make the state and local revenue system more 

regressive. A movement toward state aid and 

away from local funding of public schools may 

affect the equity of public school funding but 

may at the same time reduce local control and 

the efficiency of resource allocation. 

Property tax revenue loss is sometimes 

offset by increased reliance on other revenue 

sources. This is often an intended effect of 

some limitations. A local jurisdiction’s ability 

to compensate for property tax losses improves 

with the level of diversity of its economic base 

and the range of alternative fiscal instruments 

available to it. 

TELS ARE HERE To STAY 

It is likely that use of TELS will continue. 

TELs should be carefully designed. For 

instance, allowable growth must be tied to 

appropriate indicators that accommodate 

changes in demand, the environment, and the 

economy. Even more important, the decisionmaking process should be augmented with 

information that reveals probable secondary 

outcomes associated with the imposition of 

TELs. 

iv 
The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations is pleased to publish this 

report with the generous cooperation of the 

authors, Daniel R. Mullins and Kimberley A. 

Cox, and the Center for Urban Policy and the 

Environment, Indiana University. 

The report is based on a survey of the status of state tax and expenditure limits on local 

governments conducted by the Center, in the 

School of Public and Environmental Affairs. 

Through research and technical assistance, the 

Center works with state and local governments 

and their associations, community organizations and leaders, and business and civic organizations to identify issues, analyze options, 

and develop their capacity to respond to challenges. 

Mark S. Rosentraub, Director 

Center for Urban Policy and the Environment 

Among others, the Center would like to 

thank, especially, Alfred Tat-Kei Ho and 

Michael L. Bevers for their research assistance, and numerous state, local, and professional association officials for their willingness 

to assist in verifying and adding to our understanding. 

The Commission appreciates the opportunity to publish this up-to-date survey of the 

status of fiscal limits. The design, implementation, and effects of these limits are important 

issues in the intergovernmental fiscal system. 

ACIR would like to thank Joan Casey, of 

the Commission staff, and Clint Page for editing the report, and Stephanie Richardson for 

preparing the report for publication. 

William E. Davis 111 

Executive Directol: ACIR 

Philip M. Dearborn, Director 

Government Finance Research, ACIR 

V 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 1 

Tax and Expenditure Limitations in Context ....................................... 1 

FocusoftheReport .......................................................... 3 

Methodology ............................................................... 4 

PROPERTY TAX RATE LIMITS: OVERALL AND SPECIFIC ................................. 11 

General ................................................................... 11 

Historical Trend ............................................................ 11 

Structure .................................................................. 11 

LIMITS ON PROPERTY TAX REVENUE INCREASES ...................................... 27 

General ................................................................... 27 

Historical Trend ............................................................ 27 

Structure .................................................................. 27 

LIMITS ON ASSESSMENT INCREASES ............................................... 39 

General ................................................................... 39 

Historical Trend ............................................................ 39 

Structure .................................................................. 39 

Other .................................................................... 40 

LIMITS ON GENERAL REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES .................................. 43 

General ................................................................... 43 

Structure .................................................................. 43 

FULL DISCLOSUREITRUTH-IN-TAXATION ............................................ 49 

General ................................................................... 49 

Historical Trend ............................................................ 49 

Structure .................................................................. 49 

OTHER RESEARCH ON TAX AND EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS ............................. 57 

Why Voters Support Tax Limitations ............................................ 57 

Institutional Descriptions ..................................................... 57 

Impact on State and Local Finance ............................................. 57 

APPENDIX-LEGAL CITATIONS ................................................... 63 

TABLES 

TABLE 1 

TABLE 2 

TABLE 3 

TABLE 4 

TABLE 5 

TABLE 6 

TABLE 7 

TABLE 8 

Tax and Expenditure Limitations on Local Governments: 

Original Dates of Enactment ......................................... 5 

Overall Property Tax Rate Limits .................................... 14 

Specific Property Tax Rate Limits ................................... 16 

Limitations on Property Tax Revenue (Levy) Increases ................... 31 

Limitations on Assessment Increases ................................. 41 

Limitations on General Revenue Increases ............................. 46 

Limitations on General Expenditure Increases .......................... 47 

Full Disclosure/Truth-in-Taxation Provisions .......................... 52 

vii 
viii 
INTRODUCTION 

States have imposed a variety of statutory 

and constitutional limitations on local fiscal 

autonomy. These limitations, which exist in 46 

states, have: 

Resulted in more use of fees and miscellaneous revenues and less use of 

broad-based tax sources; 

Shifted power and responsibility to 

the state through increased reliance 

on state revenue sources and state 

assumption of service responsibilities; and 

Shifted responsibility for local government functions through the creation of special districts.’ 

The limitations have been designed ostensibly to (1) control and reduce property taxes, 

(2) control the growth of government and public spending, and (3) improve fiscal accountability.2 

This report presents the results of an 

extensive study of local tax and expenditure 

limitations (TELs) imposed by states. The 

study emphasizes design, amount of allowable 

growth, affected local governments, circumvention mechanisms, length of implementation, and significant alterations. 

TAX AND EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS IN 

CONTEXT 

Many explanations have been offered for 

the most recent wave of tax and expenditure 

limitationsthe so-called “tax revolt.” Most of 

these explanations suggest that government 

had become too large to suit the voters, and 

that the intended effect was a scaling back of 

government. However, support for limitations 

occurs relatively independently of the public’s 

desire for government services. In fact, many 

surveys in states with TELs suggest that citizens were satisfied with the level of public services and often desired more, but simply 

wanted to avoid paying for them.3 

The local property tax was the initial tax 

limitation target. This tax is highly visible and 

has historically raised the ire of taxpayers.4 The 

earliest efforts to limit property taxes took 

place in the 1880s-a period associated with 

the emergence of local home rule-and they 

have continued, augmented by limitations on 

state and local general revenues and expenditures. 

Tax and expenditure limitations impose 

potentially formidable budgetary constraints. 

However, with continued demands for public 

services, these constraints will often cause distortions in the structure of state and local revenue and expenditure systems and in the 

distribution of relative levels of responsibility 

for providing government services. 

Currently, states impose one or more limitations on the ability of local governments to 

raise revenue and spend money (see Box on 

next page). The most common categories of 

limits are those on: 

Overall property tax rates; 

Specific property tax rates; 

Property tax levies; 

General revenue or expenditure 

increases; 

1 
TYPES OF LIMITS 

Overall Property Tax Rate Limit 

Sets a ceiling that cannot be exceeded without a popular vote. 

Applies to the aggregate tax rate of all local governments. 

Is potentially binding if coupled with a limit on assessment increases; otherwise, it 

can be easily circumvented by altering assessment practices. 

Is the most common form of TEL. 

Sets a ceiling that cannot be exceeded without a popular vote. 

Applies to specific types of local jurisdictions (e.g., school districts or counties) or 

narrowly defined service areas. 

Is potentially binding if coupled with a limit on assessment increases; otherwise it 

can be circumvented by altering assessment practices or through interfund transfers 

for specific services. 

Property Tax Levy Limit 

Constrains total revenue that can be raised from the property tax, independent of 

the rate. 

Is often enacted as an allowable annual percentage increase in the levy. 

Is potentially binding because of the fixed nature of the revenue ceiling, but can be 

limited through diversification of revenue sources (which is its underlying intent). 

Caps total revenue that can be collected and attempts to constrain spending. 

Is often indexed to the rate of inflation. 

Is potentially binding because of the fixed nature of the revenue or expenditure 

ceiling. 

Controls ability of local governments to raise revenue by reassessment of property 

or through natural or administrative escalation of property values. 

Is potentially binding if coupled with an overall or specific property tax rate limit; 

otherwise it is easily avoided through an increase in property tax rates. 

Requires public discussion and specific legislative vote before enactment of tax 

rate or levy increases. 

Is nonbinding because a formal vote (generally a simple majority) of the local legislative body can increase the tax rate or levy. 

Specific Property Tax Rate Limit 

General Revenue or General Expenditure Increase 

. 

Assessment Increase 

Full Disclosure/Truth-in-Taxation 

Source: Phil G. Joyce and Daniel R. Mullins, “The Changing Fiscal Structure of the State and Local 

Public Sector: The Impact of Tax and Expenditure Limitations,” Public Adminisfrotion Review 5 1 

(May/June 1991): 240-253. 

2 
* Assessment increases; and 6 states limit the growth in assessFull disclosure (truth-in-taxation) ments. 

requirements. 2 states limit general revenue growth 

While none of the limits are necessarily (one limits counties, municipalities, 

and school districts, and one limits binding with respect to the overall revenues or 

expenditures of local governments, some are only schools). 

more effective than others.5 Limits on annual 8 states limit expenditure growth (4 

increases in property tax levies, annual revenue limit only schools, and 4 limit coun- 

(total or for specific types of local govern- ties and municipalities). 

* 22 states (at least) have some form of 

full disclosure requirement (4 have no 

other limitations). 

ments), and expenditure increases are potentially the most binding because they impose a 

fixed ceiling. At the other extreme, full disclosure is a minimal constraint that rewires onlv a d 

public hearing and a simple majority vote by 

the legislative body to override and raise a 

property tax levy (even if there is no tax rate 

increase). 

overall limits on the combined property 

tax rate levied by all local jurisdictions (e.g., 

limits on the property tax rates of specific local Limits are to ‘wing tax bases* 

4 states (Connecticut, Maine, New 

Hampshire, and Vermont) do not have 

limits . 

There are various mechanisms to suspend 

limits, ranging from simple local legislative 

votes to authorization by state tax commissions 

county, municipality, and school district) and and state legislatures to popular referendums* 

governments are potentially significant and 

binding if they are combined with a limit on 

assessment increases. Otherwise, rate limitations may be circumvented by changing 

assessment practices. Likewise, limits on 

assessment increases are not binding without 

rate limits. 

There is considerable variation in the use 

of limitations (see Table 1, page 5): 

36 states have a combination of limits 

(Arizona, California, Colorado, and 

New Mexico have the most restrictive 

combinations). 

Most of the limits exempt long-term debt 

service costs. The exemption may offer an 

incentive to reclassify expenditures and shift 

the revenue structure to include a higher 

reliance on debt financing. 

FOCUS OF THE REPORT 

This report focuses on limits imposed on 

counties, municipalities, and school districts. 

Each type of jurisdiction is considered separately because, with the general exception of 

assessment limits and full disclosure provisions, fiscal constraints are not applied uniformly. Limits on special districts and specific 

functions were not considered. Limits on local 

sales tax rates are not specifically included, but 

they may be in overall revenue limits. 

l2 states limit Overall property tax 

rates. 

30 states limit specific local governments’ tax rates (24 limit counties; 27 

Previous examinations of TELs have 

tended to neglect school districts.6 This 

limit municipalities; and 23 limit 

school districts). - 

27 states limit local tax levies (24 

limit counties; 24 limit municipalities; and 15 limit school districts). 

appears to be a significant omission, given that 

school districts accounted for 37 percent of 

total local expenditures in 199 1.7 Limitations 

3 
on school districts, counties, and municipalities are often enacted together. 

Allowable Growth 

The most significant structural feature of 

revenue, expenditure, and assessment limitations is the amount of allowable growth. 

Growth may be restricted to a specific percentage increase. Nevada, for example, limits 

county and municipal annual property tax revenue increases to a flat 6 percent. The restrictiveness of percentage limits is determined by 

general economic conditions. In periods of significant price inflation, real revenue or expenditure growth may be seriously constrained. 

Some limits tie allowable growth to changes in 

inflation and/or population. In many cases, 

growth is allowed to keep pace with inflation 

to ensure sufficient resources to maintain provision of goods and services (e.g., Illinois). 

Allowable growth associated with population 

change is intended to accommodate additional 

demands on government as a result of absolute 

increases in population, but not those associated with real income increases or the effects of 

changes in population characteristics. 

With expenditure pressures generally 

unabated and increasing, if growth provisions 

are too stringent, governments may experience 

increasing fiscal strain, regardless of the 

absolute capacity of their potential resource 

base. Yet if growth factors are relatively 

relaxed, the limitation will have little effect. 

Overriding Limits 

Revenue and expenditure limitations 

often are constructed so that only property 

taxes are constrained, leaving other broad- and 

narrow-based taxes as alternatives. In these 

instances, local governments may turn to supplemental revenue sources. In a fiscal environment that threatens to reduce government revenue and spending, evading limits is a logical 

strategy to sidestep (probable) reductions in 

programs, service provision, salaries, etc. 

Sometimes, such limitations are intended to 

shift reliance to other types of revenues. 

It also is common to include one or more 

circumvention mechanisms, usually in the 

form of voter overrides and exemptions. Voters 

may authorize an “excessive” overall increase 

or an increase for a specified purpose. Overrides typically require a simple majority, 

although several states require a supermajority. 

The most common limitation exemptions 

include special levies (e.g., for roads, recreation, mental health centers); debt service 

(typically general obligation bonds); court 

judgments; and pension liabilities. Less frequent are exemptions for home rule or charter 

local governments, appeals to a state board, 

and excessive increases decided by the vote of 

a jurisdiction’s governing body. 

METHODOLOGY 

The tables in this report present comparative information on limitations in effect for 

each state, including the original effective date 

of the provision. Amendments that significantly altered the limitation’s structure have been 

noted when appropriate dates could be determined. This information is essential for an 

accurate assessment of a limit’s impact, as the 

effects are expected to grow over time. 

A decade ago, Steven Gold called the 

information available on tax and expenditure 

limitations “piecemeal, scattered and of inconsistent quality.”* That information remains 

inconsistent and often contradictory. The data 

for this study were gathered through extensive 

legal research (see Appendix A for legal citations), follow-up surveys of state and local 

officials, and telephone conversations. 

4 
Table 1 

Tax and Expenditure Limitations on Local Governments 

Original Dates of Enactment 

Overall Specific Property 

Property Property Tax Assessment General General 

Tax Rate Tax Rate Revenue Increase Revenue Expenditure Full 

Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Disclosure 

Alabama 

County I972 1875 

Municipality 1972 1875 

School District 1972 1916 

Alaska 

County 

Municipality 

School District 

I972 1972 

Arizona 

County 1980 

Municipality 1980 

School District 1980 

1913 1980 

1913 1980 

1980 

1921 

1921 

1974 

Arkansas 

County 1883 1981 

Municipality 1883 1981 

School District 1981 

California 

County 1978 1978 1979 

Municipality 1978 1978 1979 

School District 1978 1978 1972 1979 

Colorado 

County 

Municipality 

School District 

1992 1913 

1992 1913 

1992 1992 

1992 1992 1983 

1992 1992 1983 

1992 1973 1992 

Connecticut - none 

Delaware 

County 1972 1976 

Municipality 

School District 

Florida 

County 

Municipality 

School District 

1968 

1968 

1855 

1995 

1995 

1995 

1974 

1974 

1974 

5 
Overall Specific Property 

Property Property Tax Assessment General General 

Tax Rate Tax Rate Revenue Increase Revenue Expenditure Full 

Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Disclosure 

Georgia 

County 

Municipality 

School District 1945 

1991 

1991 

1991 

Hawaii 

County 

Municipality 

School District 

1977 

Idaho 

County 1978 1913 

Municipality 1978 1967 

School District 1978 1963 

1991 

1991 

1991 

Illinois 

County 

Municipality 

School District 

1939 1991* 

1961 1991 

1961 1991 

1981 

1981 

1981 

Indiana 

County 

Municipality 

School District 

1973 

1973 

1973 

Iowa 

County 

Municipality 

School District 

N/A 

1972 

1989 

1978 

1978 

1978 

1983 

1971 

Kansas 

County 

Municipality 

School District 

1970 

1970 

1973 

Kentucky 

County 

Municipality 

School District 

1908 1979 

1908 1979 

1946 1979 

1979 

1979 

1979 

Louisiana 

county 

Municipality 

School District 

1974 1978 

1974 1978 

1974 1978 

6 
~~ 

Overall Specific Property 

Property Property Tax Assessment General General 

Tax Rate Tax Rate Revenue Increase Revenue Expenditure Full 

Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Disclosure 

Maine: none 

Maryland 

County 

Municipality 

School District 

1957 

1957 

1957 

1977 

1977 

Massachusetts 

County 

Municipality 1980 1980 

School District 

Michigan 

County 1933 1978 

Municipality 1949 1978 

School District 1933 1978 

1982 

1982 

1982 

Minnesota 

County 

Municipality 

School District 

1988 

1988 

1971 1988 

Mississippi 

County 

Municipality 

School District 

1980 

1980 

1983 

Missouri 

County 

Municipality 

School District 

1875 1980 

1875 1980 

1875 1980 

Montana 

County 

Municipality 

School District 

1931 1987 

NIA 1987 

1971 

1974 

1974 

1974 

Nebraska 

County 

Municipality 

School District 

1903 1990 

I957 1990 

1921 

1990 

1990 

1991 

Nevada 

County 1936 1983 1985 

Municipality 1936 1929 1983 1985 

School District 1936 1956 1985 

7 
Overall Specific Property 

Property Property Tax Assessment General General 

Tax Rate Tax Rate Revenue Increase Revenue Expenditure Full 

Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Disclosure 

New Hampshire - none 

New Jersey 

County 

Municipality 

School District 

1980 

1976 

1976 

New Mexico 

County 1914 1973 1979 1979 

Municipality 1914 1973 1979 1979 

School District 1914 1973 1979 1979 

New York 

County 

Municipality 

School District 

1894 

1894 

1894 

1981** 

1986*** 

North Carolina 

County 

Municipality 

School District 

1973 

1973 

North Dakota 

County 

Municipality 

School District 

1929 1981 

1929 1981 

1929 

Ohio 

County 1929 

Municipality 1929 

School District 1929 

1976 

1976 

1976 

Oklahoma 

County 1933 

Municipality 1933 

School District 1933 

Oregon 

County 1991 1916 

Municipality 1991 1916 

School District 1991 1991 1916 

Pennsylvania 

County 

Municipality 

School District 

1959 c.1940 

1959 

1959 

8 
Overall Specific Property 

Property Property Tax Assessment General General 

Tax Rate Tax Rate Revenue Increase Revenue Expenditure Full 

Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Disclosure 

Rhode Island 

County 

Municipality 

School District 

1985 

South Carolina 

County 

Municipality 

School District 

1975 

1975 

1975 

South Dakota 

County 

Municipality 

School District 

1915 

1915 

1915 

Tennessee 

County 

Municipality 

School District 

1979 

1979 

Texas 

County 

Municipality 

School District 

1876 1982 

1876 1982 

1883 1982 

1982 

1982 

1982 

Utah 

County 1898 1986 

Municipality 1929 1986 

School District 1929 1986 

Vermont - none 

Virginia 

County 

Municipality 

School District 

1976 

1976 

~~ ~~~ 

Washington 

County 1944 1973 1971 1990 

Municipality 1944 1973 1971 1990 

School District 1944 1979 1990 

West Virginia 

County 1939 1939 I990 

Municipality 1939 1939 1990 

School District 1939 1939 1990 

9 
Overall Specific Property 

Property Property Tax Assessment General General 

Tax Rate Tax Rate Revenue Increase Revenue Expenditure Full 

Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Disclosure 

Wisconsin 

County 

Municipality 

School District 

1994 

1994 

Wyoming 

County 

Municipality 

School District 

1890 

1890 

1911 

Notes: 

* Applies to non-home rule taxing units located in counties contiguous to Cook County. 

* * Nassau County only. 

*** New York City only. 

10 
GENERAL A 1992 constitutional amendment in 

Colorado limits a district’s tax rate to 

that of the prior year, unless a majority of the electorate approves an 

increase. 

Minnesota repealed the specific rate 

limit on municipalities effective fiscal 

Rate limits are the predominant form of 

state restrictions on local property taxes. Local 

governments in 33 states are affected by overall and/or specific tax rate limits. 

HISTORICAL TREND year 1992-93. 

Effective 1993-94, Wisconsin’s counties are limited to the FY 1992-93 tax 

The specific rate limits in use in nine 

states were enacted from the 1870s through the - rate. 1890s. Rate limits (in combination with debt 

limits) originated as a reaction against the local 

government practice of financing private enterprise, particularly railroad expansion, for private benefit.9 Public demand for accountability 

in government spending also has acted as a catalyst for rate limits since the 1800s. 

STRUCTURE 

Overall Rate Limits 

A rate limit’s restrictiveness depends on 

the maximum limit, definition of the taxable 

base, voter overrides, exemptions, and whether 

assessment increases also are limited. 

Between 1914 and 1939, seven states 

adopted overall rate limits, and ten states 

adopted a specific rate limit for at least one 

type of local government. In 1932, negative 

reaction to increasing tax levies in Michigan 

led to a voter-initiated amendment to the state 

Constitution that created the state’s initial 

limit. 

Maximum authorized rates range from 0.5 

percent (Class I property in Kentucky) to 3.64 

percent (Nevada). A 1 .O percent aggregate 

limit is imposed on all property classes in five 

states, on Class I11 (residential) property in 

The latest wave of limits started in the 

1970s. Overall limits were enacted in Alabama 

(1972), California and Idaho (1 978), and Arizona (1 980). Two statutory provisions 

strengthened existing constitutional amendments (Nevada and Washington). Although 

the popularity of rate limitations waned in the 

1980s, there has been an increase in activity in 

the 1990s: 

Alabama, and on Class I1 (residential) property 

in West Virginia. 

The effects of the rate limit vary greatly 

by state because real property valuations are 

based on measures as diverse as acquisition 

cost, market value, cash value (adjusting for 

depreciation), and true cash value. Assessment 

ratios also vary from 30 percent to 100 percent.10 For example, a 1 percent rate is applied 

A 1991 voter initiative enacted Oregon’s overall property tax rate limit. 

to assessed value that is one-third of market 

value in Ohio and full cash value in Arizona. 

11 
Oregon’s limit is applied to real market value, 

with a 100 percent assessment ratio. If property 

values and rates were held equal between Ohio 

and Oregon, Ohio’s fractional base would 

make its limit three times more restrictive. 

Most states exclude debt service, but a 

few states include it in rate limits. One example is Nevada, which also has the highest 

absolute rate of 3.64 percent with an allowable 

increase of up to 5 percent if directed by law. 

West Virginia includes county and municipal 

debt service but not that of school districts. 

In California, exclusions for debt service 

on bonds issued after July 1, 1978, require a 

two-thirds majority vote of the public. In 

Washington, the limit may be exceeded to pay 

debt service on bonds if approved by a threefifths majority vote of the electorate. 

Voter-approved additional levies are a 

common override mechanism (Arizona, New 

Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Washington, and 

West Virginia). Oklahoma voters may approve 

an emergency 5 mill limit for school districts, a 

10 mill local support levy, and others. Exclusions that allow special purpose levies outside 

of the limit also are common. Arizona excludes 

special districts from the limit, and Washington 

excludes debt service, voter-approved increases, payments on contracts, port and public utility districts, conservation futures, emergency 

medical service levy, and others. 

Specific Rate Limits 

Specific rate limits have features similar 

to overall rate limits. Voter-approved increases 

and special purpose levies are common features, and almost all specific limits exclude 

debt service. There also are some exceptions: 

Nevada’s 30 mill limitation on 

municipalities includes debt service, 

and there are no approved increases. 

Texas excludes county debt service 

for specified projects (e.g., dams and 

roads). All municipal debt service is 

included, with no special levies or 

approved increases. 

Kentucky counties and municipalities 

must have a two-thirds majority popular vote to approve debt that exceeds 

total revenue in a given year. 

New York does not allow special purpose levies for counties, municipalities, or school districts, and includes 

debt service on short-term debt for 

non-capital purposes. New York is 

unique in applying its rate limits 

against the average full value of taxable real estate for the preceding five 

years. This guards against an unusually large tax bill in the event of a dramatic increase in valuation. 

Illinois and North Dakota determine a 

local government’s maximum rate by 

population. Pennsylvania and West 

Virginia set maximum rates by class 

of property, and Missouri and Utah 

use total assessed valuation. 

School districts in Iowa, Montana, 

and Nevada are subject to mandatory 

rather than maximum rates. A school 

district in Iowa that wants State 

School Foundation Program funds 

must levy 5.4 mills for its general 

fund. 

12 
OVERALL PROPERTY TAX RATE LIMITS - SUMMARY PROFILE 

Classification 

Twelve states have overall property tax rate limitations, 9 of them in the West or South. No northeastern 

states apply these overall limits. These limitations are relatively old, with 8 (66%) enacted prior to 1978. Eleven 

states limit rates across multiple classifications of property (sometimes at different rates); one applies only to residential property. Debt service is excluded from the limit in 9 states (75%), special purpose and excess levies are 

allowed in 6 states (50%), and home rule jurisdictions are exempted in 2 states. Six states also have general override provisions through popular referenda (one state requires a supermajority). 

Occurrence Exclusions 

Prior to 1978: 8 Multiple Classifications: 11 

1978 or After: 4 Residential Only: 1 

Debt Service: 9 

Special Purpose & 

Excess Levies: 6 

Home Rule Exemption: 2 

Special Purpose Districts: 1 

Override Provisions 

Popular Referenda: 

Simple Majority: 5 

Supermajority: 1 

Legislative: 

Additional Levies: 1 

Temporary: 2 

SPECIFIC PROPERTY TAX RATE LIMITS - SUMMARY PROFILE 

Specific property tax rate limitations are imposed by 30 states, and 88% of them were adopted before 1978. 

At least 9 states had some form of specific limitation before 1900, and 20 had them by 1950. In the Midwest, 83% 

of states impose specific rate limitations, followed by 76% for the West, 56Y' for the South, and only 33% for the 

Northeast. Over the last two decades, these limitations were applied most frequently to municipalities (29 states or 

91%). Counties were limited in 26 states and school districts in 24, while 21 states (66%) applied limitations to all 

three simultaneously. Exclusions and override provisions are common. Full or partial debt service exclusions exist 

in at least 22 states (69%). Special levies in excess of the rate limits are permitted in 19 states (e.g., salaries and 

pensions, fire services, capital outlays, and highways). Home rule communities are exempt in three states. In some 

states, rate limits apply only to general services, operations, or particular funds. General overrides are permitted by 

popular referenda in 21 states, with a supermajority required in at least three. 

I I 

Exclusions I Override Provisions Occurrence I Scope I 

Prior to 1978: 28 

1978 or after: 4 

Units Applied to: 

Counties: 24 

Municipalities: 28 

School: 24 

States Limiting All: 21 

Debt Service: 22 

Special Levies/ 

Classifications : 19 

Home Rule: 3 

Popular Referenda: 

Simple Majority: 18 

Supermajority: 3 

Legislative: 1 

13 
Table 2 

Overall Property Tax Rate Limits 

State Effective Year Rate Description (as amended) 

Alabama 1972 1 .O% to 2.0% Initial constitutional amendment limited taxes payable to 

1.5% of fair and reasonable market value. 

(am 1 97 8) 1978 amendment separated limits by class of property: 

Class I, limited to 2%; Class 11, 1.5%; Class I11 (includes 

residential housing), 1 .O%; Class IV, 1.25%. 

Arizona 1980 1 .O% Maximum taxes collected from residential property limited 

to I % of full cash value. Exclusions include taxes levied (1) 

to pay debt service, (2) for special purpose districts, and (3) 

excess following an election. 

California 1978 1.0% Maximum rate limited to 1% of full cash value, excluding 

existing debt. 

1986 amendment excluded bonds issued after July 1, 1978, 

limit if approved by 2/3 vote of electorate. 

(am 1986) 

Idaho 1978 1 .O% Maximum rate limited to 1% of market value for assessment purposes. Exclusions include debt service and special 

assessments. ~ 

Michigan 1933 1.5% Aggregate limit for operating purposes applies to unchartered counties, unchartered townships, and school districts. 

Levy within 1.5% limitation distributed to taxing units 

through an allocation board. Voters may increase limit to 

1.8%, at which time tax allocation is fixed. Limit may be 

increased up to 5% for a period not to exceed 20 years, with 

a majority vote. Debt service excluded. 

1936 constitutional amendment limited total tax levy for all 

public purposes including debt service to 5% of assessed 

valuation. 

1979 3.64% 1979 statute strengthened limit by reducing maximum ad 

valorem levy to 3.64%. State Board of Examiners may 

adjust the rate upward (to the maximum 5%) or downward 

if directed by law. 

1.8% 

5.0% 

Nevada 1936 

New Mexico 1914 2.0% Maximum rate of 2% applied to real and personal property. 

Debt service and approved special levies excluded. Additional levy may be authorized by majority of voters. 

Ohio 1929 1934 constitutional amendment reduced maximum limit 

from 1.5% to 1%. Limit applies to each dollar of tax valuation, approximately 1 /3 of market value. Voter-authorized 

(am 1934) 

1953 1 .O% 

14 
State Effective Year Rate Description (as amended) 

Ohio (continued) debt service and charter cities with higher limits excluded. 

Additional levy may be authorized by majority of voters. 

1953 statutory provision limited the rate to “10 mills on 

each dollar of tax valuation.” 

Oklahoma 1933 1.5% Maximum rate limited to 1.5%, with minimum of 5 mills 

for school districts. 

Additional levies may be applied without voter approval: 

counties may levy 4 mills for schools; school districts may 

levy 15 mills with Board of Education authorization. 

Additional levies may be applied with voter approval: 

emergency 5 mills for school districts; a 10% mill local 

support levy; and others. Debt service is excluded. 

Oregon 1991 varies Limit created through a voter initiative, Measure 5. Aggregate rate on taxing districts is divided into two categories: 

(1) to find public schools and (2) to fund other government 

operations. 

Limits: FY 1991-92 - 2.5% (1.5% for schools); FY 1992-93 

- 2.25% (1.25% for schools); FY 1993-94 - 2% (1% for 

schools); for FY 1994-95 - 1.75% (0.75% for schools); FY 

1995-96 - 1.5% (0.5% for schools). Debt service excluded. 

Washington 1944 1 .O% Original 4% rate limit applied to assessed value (50% of 

true and fair value). 

1972 amendment reduced limit to 1% of true and fair value. 

Port and public utility districts are excluded. Limit may be 

exceeded (1) on a 3/5 vote of the electorate; (2) to pay debt 

service on g.0. bonds that received 3/5 majority vote; and 

(3) to meet court-ordered contractual obligations. 

Additional statutory limit provides that aggregate rate may 

not exceed 0.95% as applied to assessed value. State levies 

0.36% for school purposes; 0.59% apportioned among 

remaining districts. Excluded from limit: excess levies 

referred to above, port and public utility districts, conservation futures, emergency medical service levy, and others. 

Separate limits for each class of property: Class 1, 0.5%; 

Class 11 (includes residential housing), 1%; Class 111, 1.5%; 

Class IV, 2%. Debt service for school districts excluded. 

Limits may be increased by 50% for up to three years for 

counties and municipalities, and by 100% for up to five 

years for school districts. 

(am 1972) 

1973 1 .O% 

West Virginia 1939 0.5% to 2.0% 

15 
Table 3 

Specific Property Tax Rate Limitations 

State 

~~ ~ ~~ 

Effective Year Description/Millage Limit (as amended) 

Alabama 

Counties 

Municipalities 

School Districts 

1875 Limited to 5 mills for county general purposes; up to 2.5 

mills for debt service; 2.5 mills for debt prior to 1875; 1 

mill for schools; additional 30 mills for schools if approved 

by voters (effective 1916); constitutional amendments have 

authorized additional taxes for special purposes. 

I875 

1916 

Limited to 5 mills, except for Mobile (7.5 mills); amendments have authorized additional special purpose taxes. 

If voters approve, may raise special district tax for school 

purposes. 

Alaska 

Municipalities 1972 Municipalities are the only type of local government; rate 

limit may be considered either overall or specific. 

Limited to 30 mills, excluding debt service. Second class 

cities, by referendum, may levy up to 15 mills. No 

approved increases. 

Arkansas 

Counties 1883 

Municipalities 1883 

School Districts (no general limit) 

Limited to 5 mills for general purposes with additional 5 

mills for debt incurred priorto 1883. Amendments authorized additional taxes for special purposes (e.g., effective 

1983, an additional 3 mills for county roads). 

Limited to 5 mills for general purposes; additional mills for 

debt service. Specific purpose levies authorized (e.g., 2 

mills for pensions). 

No specific limit for general purposes; tax rate requires 

voter approval. Effective 1989, 2 mill limit for capital outlays. Effective 1977, 10 mill limit for community college 

districts. 

Colorado 

Counties, Municipalities 1992 

and School Districts 

Constitutional amendment (“TABOR”) constrains specific 

rates: district mill rate may decrease from prior year but 

may not increase without voter approval. Cap is prior 

year’s rate. Limit suspended when revenue is less than payments on debt service, judgments, and pensions. 
State Effective Year DescriptiodMillage Limit (as amended) 

Florida 

Counties 1968 Limited to 10 mills, excludes debt service; additional 10 

mills may be levied if county provides a municipal service; 

referendum vote may authorize additional levy up to two 

years. 

Municipalities 

School Districts 

1968 

1855 

(am 1922) 

(am 1968) 

1973 

Limited to 10 mills, excludes debt service; referendum vote 

may authorize additional levy up to two years. 

Originally, district could levy up to 3 mills with voter 

approval. 

1922-limit raised to 10 mills. 

1968 revision provided 10-mill rate, excluding debt, with 

voter-approved increase up to two years. 

Effective 1973, a district wishing to receive state funds 

must levy additional millage, exclusive of above, at a rate 

necessary to provide “local effort.” Additional non-voted 

levy of 1.6 mills or 25% of “local effort,” whichever is less; 

an additional 2 mills for certain purposes. 

Georgia 

Counties 

School Districts 

late 1800s 

(repealed 1981) 

1945 

Limited counties to 5 mills, including debt; additional 2.5 

mills with voter approval. 

Limited to 20 mills for “support and maintenance of education,” excludes debt service; increase possible with voter 

approval. 

Idaho 

Counties 

Municipalities 

School Districts 

1913 Limited to 13 mills or rate sufficient to raise $250,000, 

whichever is greater, excludes debt service; many special 

purpose levies. 

1967 Limited to 45 mills, excludes debt service; special purpose 

levies authorized (e.g., 6 mills for recreation and culture). 

Limited to 20 mills, excludes debt service; additional special purpose levies; voter-approved supplemental levy up to 

two years. 

1963 

Illinois 

Counties 1939 

(at least) 

Limit based on population and applicable to non-home rule 

counties: 2.5 mills for counties with populations between 

80,000 and 3 million; 2.7 mills for populations between 

15,000 and 80,000; 3.7 mills for population less than 

15,000; 3.9 and 3.5 mills in even and odd years for popula17 
State Effective Year DescriptionMillage Limit (as amended) 

Illinois (continued) 

Municipalities 

School Districts 

1961 

1961 

tions greater than 3 million. Excludes debt service. Limit 

may be increased by voter referendum. Special purpose 

levies exist. 

Limit for “corporate” purposes and applicable to non-home 

rule municipalities. Municipalities with less than 500,000 

population may levy up to 2.5 mills or the rate limit in 

effect on July 1, 1967, whichever is greater. Excludes debt 

service and authorized special purpose levies. Limit may be 

increased up to 4.375 mills with voter approval. 

Limit applies to districts with less than 500,000 population, 

based on grade level. Excludes debt service and authorized 

special purpose levies. Limits for “education”: 9.2 mills for 

districts that operate grades 1-8, which may increase to 35 

mills by referendum; 9.2 mills for grades 9-12, which may 

increase to 35 mills; 18.4 mills for grades 1-12, which may 

increase to 40 mills. Limits for operations and maintenance: 2.5 mills for grades 1-8, which may increase to 5.5 

mills by referendum; 2.5 mills for grades 9-12, which may 

increase to 5.5 mills; and 5 mills for grades 1-12, which 

may increase to 7.5 mills. 

Iowa 

Counties 

Municipalities 

School Districts 

orig. date unknown 

(am1 983) 

Originally, many limits for various funds, including 8 1 -cent 

limit on general fund. 

1983 reform consolidated funds into larger general fund 

with limit of $3.50/$1000 a.v. for general services and 

$3.95 for rural services. Excludes debt service. A 27-cent 

emergency levy available. 

1974 change from 30 mills to 8.1 mills ($8.10/$1000 a.v.)., 

Excludes debt service and authorized special purpose 

levies. Additional 27-cent emergency levy available. 

1972 

(am 1974) 

1989 District wishing to participate in State School Foundation 

Program must levy 5.4 mills for the general fund (4.4 mills 

for reorganized districts). 

Effective 1977, any political subdivision may appeal to the 

State Board for suspension if property values decline or 

there is low growth in the base. 

Kansas 

Counties, Municipalities 1933 1933 statute detailed levies authorized for counties, cities, 

and schools, and set total levy (rate) limit for each type of 

taxing unit. Rate limit for county current general fund 

ranged from 4.25 to 6.5 mills depending on total assessed 

value. All historical fund mill levy rates suspended in 1989. 

and School Districts (suspended 1989) 

18 
State Effective Year DescriptionlMillage Limit (as amended) 

Kentucky 

Counties 1908 Limited to 5 mills for purposes other than schools. Rate 

cannot be exceeded with voter approval. Requires 213 

majority vote to approve any debt in any year which 

exceeds the income and revenue provided for that year. 

Municipalities 1908 

(am mid-1980s) 

Cities with population of 15,000 or more limited to 15 

mills; population between 10,000 and 15,000 limited to 10 

mills; populations less than 10,000 limited to 7.5 mills, for 

other than school purposes. Limits may not be exceeded. A 

2/3 majority vote required to approve debt. In the mid198Os, cities were provided with opportunity to impose a 

special property tax outside current limits, with voter 

approval. 

School Districts 1946 Limited to 15 mills, excluding debt service. 

Louisiana 

Counties 

Municipalities 

School Districts 

1974 

1974 

1974 

Limited to 4 mills (7 mills in Orleans Parish, 5 mills in 

Jackson Parish). Excludes debt service. Rates may be 

increased by majority vote. Approved increases allowed for 

special purposes. 

Limited to 7 mills, or 10 mills if maintains own public 

schools. Excludes debt service. Rates may be increased by 

majority vote. Approved increases for special purposes. 

Limit does not apply to New Orleans. 

Limited to 5 mills (13 mills for Orleans school board). 

Excludes debt service. Additional special purpose levies 

permitted with majority vote. 

Massachusetts 

Municipalities 1980 (am1991) Total taxes assessed on real and personal property may not 

exceed 2.5% (25 mills) of full and fair cash value. If total 

taxes exceed limit, municipality must annually decrease 

taxes assessed by at least 15% to level of 2.5%. With a 213 

vote, local authority may seek voter approval to assess 

taxes in excess of amount allowed. 

Michigan 

Municipalities 1949 City charter rates limited to 20 mills. Home rule cities limited to 20 mills. Electors may approve additional millage 

for specific purposes. Excludes debt service. 

19 
State Effective Year DescriptiodMillage Limit (as amended) 

Minnesota 

Municipalities 

Missouri 

Counfies 

Municipalities 

School Districts 

Montana 

Counties 

Municipalities 

School Districts 

repealed 1989 

(effective 1992-93) 

Percentage of Taxable Value Limitation, for general fund, 

limited charter cities to 0.32237% of taxable market value 

unless greater amount authorized by charter, and limited 

statutory cities to 0.28207%. City total general find levy 

restricted by the least of (1) the $54 per capita levy limit or 

(2) the taxable value limit. 

1875 

1875 

1875 

Counties with total assessed value of $300 million or more 

limited to 3.5 mills; other counties limited to 5 mills. 

Excludes debt service. Limit may be exceeded for up to 

four years with 2/3 majority vote. 

Effective 1978, counties provided with additional levy for 

roads and bridges up to 5 mills; voter approval necessary if 

rate will exceed 3.5 mills. 

Limited to 10 mills. Excludes debt service. Limit may be 

exceeded up to four years with 213 majority vote. 

Districts formed of cities and towns limited to 12.5 mills; 

all others limited to 6.5 mills. Excludes debt service. Limit 

may be increased with voter approval. 

orig.date unknown 

(am 1965) 

1971 

1931 

(am 1987) 

For general fund, lst, 2nd and 3rd class counties limited to 

25 mills; 4th-7th class counties limited to 27 mills. 

Excludes debt service. Specified purpose levies allowed. In 

1987 an all-purpose levy of 55 mills was authorized as 

option. Some voter-approved increases allowed. 

1965, all-purpose levy of 65 mills authorized in lieu of multiple levies. Limit on general fund 24 mills, excluding debt 

service. Some specified purposes and voter-approved 

increases. 

State Equalization Program requires each county to levy 

annual basic tax of 33 mills for elementary schools and 22 

mills for high schools. School district may adopt general 

fund budget in excess of the foundation program, up to 9 

additional mills for elementary schools and 6 mills for high 

schools. 

Nebraska 

Counties I903 Original statutory limit 15 mills, amended many times, limits various purposes. For general purposes, counties with 

20 
State 

~~ 

Effective Year Description/Millage Limit (as amended) 

Nebraska (continued) 

Municipalities 

School Districts 

1920 

1957 

1921 

populations greatedless than 9,000 limited to 3.5 mills/4.2 

mills. 

1920 constitutional amendment limited counties to aggregate of 5 mills, excluding existing debt, unless authorized 

to increase by majority vote. (Constitutional limit applies to 

actual value; statutory limit applies to 35% of actual 

assessed value.) 

All-purpose levy of 1st class cities limited to 8.75 mills, 

2nd class cities limited to 10.5 mills. Excludes debt service, 

payment of judgments, fire and police pensions for 1 st class 

cities. If assessed value declines, voters may approve 

increase for up to five years. 

Limits 1st class districts to 4.2 mill. Excludes debt service. 

Voter-approved increase (55%) is available. Voters may 

approve special levy. 

Nevada 

Municipalities 

School Districts 

1929 Limited to 30 mills for all purposes. Includes debt service. 

No approved increases. 

1956 Mandatory tax levy of 7.5 mills. Additional levies authorized for debt service. 

New Mexico 

Counties 

Municipalities 

School Districts 

1973 

(am 1987) 

1973 

(am1987) 

1973 

(am1 987) 

Limited to maximum of 11.85 mills. Excludes debt service. 

Additional levies for special purposes may be authorized by 

majority vote of electors. 

Limited to 7.65 mills. Excludes debt service. Additional 

levies may be authorized by majority vote. 

Limited to 0.5 mills. Excludes debt service. Additional 

levies may be authorized by majority vote. 

1987 amendment changed amounts of rates. 

New York 

Counties 1894 Original limits passed in 1894 amended many times. Actual 

limits the same since 1953. Limits apply against average 

full value of taxable real estate for the preceding five years. 

Excludes debt service except short-term debt for non-capital purposes. No special purpose levies. 

Counties limited to 15 mills, which may be increased to 20 

mills by a 2/3 vote of legislative body or majority vote of 

body followed by mandatory referendum. 

21 
State 

~ ~~ 

Effective Year Description/Millage Limit (as amended) 

New York (continued) 

Municipalities 1894 Cities and villages limited to 20 mills (New York City, 25 

mills). 

School Districts 1894 Districts of cities with populations less than 125,000 limited to 12.5 mills, which may be increased to 20 mills by 

majority vote. 

North Carolina 

Counties 

Municipalities 

1973 Counties may levy taxes for one or more of 37 purposes, 

each with legislatively approved rate limits, up to combined 

maximum rate of 15 mills. Voters may approve increase in 

the combined rate or specific rates. Each county may levy 

taxes without restriction for certain purposes (e.g., debt service, schools). 

Limited to 15 mills. Excludes debt service. Voters may 

approve increase. 

1973 

North Dakota 

Counties 

Municipalities 

School Districts 

1929 

1929 

Currently limited to 23 mills (original limit was 8 mills) for 

general or special purposes. Excludes debt service. 

Limited to 38 mills or 40 mills if city has population over 

5,000 - an additional 0.05 mills may be levied per 1,000 

persons over 5,000, up to 40 mills. Excludes debt service. 

A majority vote may increase additional 10 mills. 

1929 Aggregate amount levied shall not exceed the dollar 

amount for prior year plus 18%, up to a general fund levy 

of 180 mills. Excludes debt service. District with population of 4,000 or more may authorize any number of mills by 

majority vote, or the limit may be removed. 

Oregon 

School Districts 1991 Specific rates are component of overall rate limit imposed 

by Measure 5. Maximum rates applied to real market value 

to fund the public school system: 15 mills, FY 1991-92; 

12.5 mills, FY 1992-93; 10 mills, FY 1993-94; 7.5 mills, 

FY 1994-95; 5 mills, FY 1995-96. Excludes debt service. 

Pennsylvania 

Counties 1959 Limits based on class of county: 2nd class, 25 mills; 2ndA 

class, 30 mills; 3rd-8th class, 25 mills with an additional 5 

mills available by court appeal. Excludes debt service. 

Home rule counties exempt. 

22 
State Effective Year Description/Millage Limit (as amended) 

Pennsylvania (continued) 

Municipalities 

School Districts 

1959 3rd class cities limited to 25 mills with additional 5 mills 

available with court approval. Excludes debt service. Home 

rule cities and cities of Ist, 2nd, and 2ndA class exempt, 

including Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Scranton. Other 

state laws authorize additional taxing power for financially 

distressed municipalities. 

Districts of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th class limited to 25 mills. 

Special-purpose levies authorized (e.g., debt service and 

salaries). No longer any limits on 1st class districts. 

1959 

South Dakota 

Counties 

Municipalities 

School Districts 

1915 Limit 12 mills for general purposes. Excludes debt service 

and authorized special levies (e.g., county buildings, fire 

protection). 3/4 majority vote may authorize up to additional 6 mills. 

1915 

1915 

Limited to 27 mills for all purposes. Excludes debt service. 

3/4 majority vote may increase limits by 6 mills. 

Limited to 14.4 mills for the general fund on agricultural 

property. Limited to 24 mills on non-agricultural property. 

Special levies for capital outlay, liabilities, pensions, and 

special education. 314 majority vote may increase limits. 

Texas 

Counties 

Municipalities 

School Districts 

1876 

1876 

1883 

Limit 8 mills for general levy with an additional 3 mills for 

roads and flood control. Special road levy of 1.5 mills may 

be authorized if approved by majority of voters. Debt service excluded for certain projects/purposes. 

Home rule cities limited to 25 mills; general law cities limited to 15 mills, including debt service. No provisions for 

special levies or increases. (An amendment between 1967 

and 1976 increased the limit from 8 mills.) 

1883 constitutional amendment provided for the formation 

of school districts to assess and collect additional taxes 

when state fund proved insufficient. Districts originally 

limited to 2 mills and required voter approval for any 

school tax. Current limit is 15 mills, subject to voter 

approval. 

Utah 

Counties 1898 

(am 1 96 1) 

Original limit 5 mills for county purposes. Limits now for 

counties with total taxable value of more or less than $100 

23 
State Effective Year Description/Millage Limit (as amended) 

Utah (continued) 

Municipalities 1929 

School Districts 1929 

(am1988) 

million are 16 or 18 mills, respectively, excluding debt 

service. Certain special purpose levies exist. 

Limit 35 mills, including charter cities. Debt service and 

specifically authorized levies are excluded. 

Original limit 12 mills. Effective 1988, basic levy rate 

set by legislature and adjusted from time to time. Districts may also levy local rates; may not exceed specified 

ceilings for operations and maintenance, capital outlay, 

and debt service. District may levy additional tax rate 

that yields 10% of total Basic Program dollar amount. 

Washington 

Counties 

Municipalities 

1973 

1973 

Specific limits within constraints of overall statutory 

limit of 9.5 mills. Counties limited to 1.8 mills for current expenses and 2.25 mills for county roads. County 

may increase levy to 2.475 mills if total for county and 

roads does not exceed 4.05 mills. Excludes debt service. 

Limited to 3.375 mills, excluding debt service, and within constraints of overall limit. 

West Virginia 

Counties 

Municipalities 

School Districts 

1939 

1939 

1939 

Limits depend on class of property: Class I counties, 

1.43 mills; Class 11, 2.86 mills; Class 111 and IV, 5.72 

mills. Includes debt service. 

Class I municipalities limited to 1.25 mills; Class Q2.5 

mills; and Class IV, 5 mills. Includes debt service. 

Class I districts limited to 2.295 mills; Class 11, 4.59 

mills; Class 111 and IV, 9.18 mills for current expenses 

and special finds. Excludes debt service. 

(Limits may be increased by 50% for counties and 

municipalities up to three years; and for school districts 

by 100% up to five years.) 

Wisconsin 

Counties 

Recent legislation established limits on counties. Operating tax rate limited to no more than rate in FY 1992- 

93. Excludes debt service. Certain overrides exist with 

majority vote on popular referenda. Increases occur 

through changes in equalized value. 

1993-94 

24 
State Effective Year Description/Millage Limit (as amended) 

Wyoming 

Counties 

Municipalities 

1890 

1890 

School Districts 191 1 

Limit 12 mills for general purposes. Excludes debt service. Additional 6 mills for school purposes. 

Limit 8 mills for all purposes. Excludes debt service. 

Limit 25 mills. Excludes debt service. Additional 3 mills 

may be levied with voter approval; another 3 mills for 

capital outlay may be levied with approval of voters and 

school board. 

25 
26 
GENERAL 

Property tax revenue (levy) limits specify 

the maximum annual increases in revenue. 

Some states impose restrictions on allowable 

increases only after property is revalued. A 

revenue limit imposed after a statewide or 

countywide reassessment is referred to as a 

revenue rollback limit (unless reassessments 

occur annually). Rollbacks require that tax 

rates be adjusted to prevent an increase in revenue, but some states specify an allowable 

growth percentage. Growth from new construction generally is excluded from the allowable increase (see Table 4, page 3 1 ). 

These limits exist in 27 states. Ten states 

impose the revenue limit following reassessment, seven of them in the less restrictive form 

of assessment rollback provisions. All states 

except Indiana and Mississippi “couple” the 

revenue limit with another form of TEL. These 

two states impose miscellaneous rate limits on 

certain functions, but they are the only states 

that have no additional general limitations. 

HISTORICAL TREND 

Property tax revenue limits are the second 

most popular form of TEL. They affect local 

governments in 26 states. These limits are, 

however, a relatively recent phenomenon. 

Only three states imposed such limits before 

1970. In 1913, limits on increases by counties 

and municipalities were imposed in Arizona 

(10 percent) and Colorado (5 percent); and 

Oregon imposed a levy limit on taxing districts 

in 1916. Eight states enacted these limits in the 

1970s. 

During the 1980s, 11 states initiated a 

levy limit. Kansas suspended an annual limit 

and replaced it with a rollback limit in 1989; 

and Utah’s limit was repealed in 1986. 

So far in the 1990s: 

Colorado passed a constitutional 

amendment in 1992 that complements an earlier statutory limit. 

Idaho repealed its 5 percent limit in 

1992. 

Illinois enacted an “extension” limit 

for districts in the metropolitan 

Chicago area in 199 1. 

West Virginia passed a 10 percent 

levy limit in 1990. 

Nebraska passed a 1990 budget limitation that precludes counties and 

municipalities from increasing property tax receipts by more than 5 percent without voter approval. 

STRUCTURE 

The restrictive nature of a property tax 

revenue limit is determined by the percentage 

of allowable annual growth, voter overrides, 

and exemptions. 

Growth Rates 

Allowable growth is expressed differently among the states, and the amount differs 

dramatically, from 2 percent in Arizona to 15 

percent in Delaware. Arkansas limits levies to 

a 10 percent increase following reassessment; 

27 
and Massachusetts and Rhode Island limit 

municipal levies to annual increases of 2.5 percent and 5.5 percent. 

Overrides 

At least 15 states provide for voter overFollowing reassessment, Kansas taxing 

units must certify a rate that will not produce 

revenue greater than that levied in the previous 

year. Units in Louisiana must adjust rates to 

produce the same revenue as in the previous 

year unless overridden by a two-thirds vote of 

the local legislative body. 

Allowable growth also may be expressed 

as a shifting percentage that is determined by 

changes in inflation, population, and/or property values. This may provide local jurisdictions 

with some flexibility to respond to changing 

circumstances. For example: 

The Colorado constitution limits 

annual increases to the rate of inflationary change plus annual local 

growth. Local growth for a nonschool district is defined as a net percentage change in actual value of all 

real property in a district from construction of taxable real property 

improvements, minus destruction of 

similar improvements, and additions 

to, minus deletions from, taxable real 

property. For a school district, it 

means percentage change in student 

enrollment (Art. X 5 20(2)(g)). 

Illinois limits the increase in property 

tax “extensions” to 5 percent or the 

percentage increase in the national 

consumer price index, whichever is 

less. 

In Michigan and Missouri (up to a 

maximum of 5 percent), rollback 

rates allow revenue to grow at the rate 

of inflation. 

Indiana levy limits are determined by 

the average growth in assessed value 

during the previous three years (see 

Box, page 29). 

rides of levy limits. Overrides are valid for different lengths of time in different states. For 

example: 

Illinois voters may override limits for 

one levy year. 

Michigan district voters may approve 

a revenue increase above the allowable inflationary increase annually. 

Oregon has a more sophisticated system by which voters may approve a 

one-year additional levy to balance 

the budget and a multi-year levy for 

general or special purposes. A fixed 

dollar amount increase may be levied 

uniformly for five to ten years, and 

supplemental rate increases may be 

approved for up to three years. 

Through a “safety net” levy, school 

districts may exceed their revenue 

limits without voter approval in an 

amount equal to the amount levied for 

operating purposes in the prior year. 

Voter-approved additional levies also 

are authorized. 

Massachusetts overrides require a 

two-thirds majority vote. 

Exemptions 

Allowable exemptions are another mechanism that may reduce the effect of a limitation. Examples of common exemptions include 

the following: 

New construction, improvements, 

Debt service; 

and annexations; 

Certain expenditures of home rule 

jurisdictions (Colorado and Illinois); 

Amounts for emergency situations 

(New Jersey and Rhode Island); 

28 
MODIFYING INDIANA’S LIMITS 

Limitations to provide property tax relief were introduced in Indiana in 1974 through the “Great Bowen Tax 

Act.” To encourage use of other local revenue sources, the tax reform provided for an optional I percent county 

adjusted gross income tax: 

Counties and civil units that adopted the income tax would have an absolute ceiling on property tax revenue equal to the amount from the 1973 property tax levy. 

Jurisdictions that did not adopt the income tax were limited to the 1973 property tax rate, thus limiting 

revenue growth to increases in assessed value. 

School district general fund levies were limited to 1973 levels of revenue, with annual adjustments as 

permitted by law (e.g., to reflect increases in student population). 

Civil unit limitations were liberalized in 1977, but the levy limits remain restrictive: 

The distinction between counties that did and did not adopt the income tax was eliminated. 

Following a 1979 statewide reassessment, property tax levies were allowed to increase only by 5 percent 

in 1978 and 8 percent in 1979, and the 1980 levies were frozen at the 1979 level. 

School district levies remained frozen at the 1973 levels (as adjusted).’ 

Current provisions limit civil units to an increase in property tax revenue equal to their “assessed value 

growth quotient” (AVGQ). The quotient is based on the average annual growth in assessed value over the previous 

three budget years, excluding reassessment years. The minimum allowable AVGQ is 5 percent, and maximum 

growth is limited to 10 percent. The maximum permissible levy is based on the previous year’s maximum, multiplied by the AVGQ.2 Each year, the maximum levies of about 90 percent of local governments increase at 5 percent; that is, their three-year average assessed value increase was less than 5 percent.3 

School district limits also were revised, made less restrictive, and incorporated into the state funding formula. As of 1993, school districts may increase their general fund normal/base levy by the average increase in 

assessed value over the last two years (excluding reassessment years), with adjustments for enrollment, reductions 

in federal impact assistance, new facilities appeals, and referenda! 

There also are uniform statewide adjustments to the maximum allowable local base levy prior to the adjustment for the rate of assessed value growth. For 1993, the maximum allowable levy was increased by $0.08 per 

$100 of assessed value. Revenues necessary to operate a new school facility or revenues derived from a successful 

local referendum are added to the allowable increase, establishing a revised base levy. This levy is then adjusted 

by the rate of growth in assessed value.5 

I David J. Bennett and Stephanie E. Stullich, Financing Local Government in lndiuna (Fort Wayne: Indiana Taxpayers Research Association, 1992). 

Indiana Legislative Service Agency, lndianu Handbook of Taxes, Revenues, and Appropriutions (Indianapolis, 1993). 

Larry DeBoer, The Taxation off‘roperty in lndianu (West Lafayette: Purdue University, Center for Tax Policy Studies, 1992). 

* 

Capital projects and special education funds are subject to hnctional rate limits. Transportation and debt service are not subject to limits. 

Indiana Fiscal Policy Institute, A Guide to lndiana School Finance, 1992-93 Edition (Indianapolis, 1992). 

Expenditures mandated by state or 

federal law (Mississippi, New Jersey); and 

Offsets to the loss of nonproperty tax 

revenue (mode Island). 

Kansas’ 1970 levy limit allowed approximately 60 exemptions, including some city 

levies for general and special improvements 

paid for in cash (in lieu of bond issues), and for 

an amount necessary to offset losses from a 

city’s elimination of the tax on intangible personal property.” In 1977, the state Attorney 

General ruled that counties and municipalities 

were authorized to modify the limit. The limit 

was not considered binding because the many 

exemptions and their different applications 

rendered the limit meaningless and violated 

the Uniformity Clause. 

29 
, 

I 

PROPERTY TAX LEVY LIMITS - SUMMARY PROFILE 

The tax levy limit is the second most popular form. It is used by 28 states,] with 17 states (61 % ) enacting it 

after 1978. Its popularity is greatest in the West (10 states, 77 %), followed by the Midwest (8 states, 67%). These 

limits are less common in the Northeast (4 states, 44%), and the South (6 states, 38 YO). The limits are imposed on 

counties and municipalities in 23 states, and on school districts in 14 states (they are also applied to counties and 

municipalities in these states). 

These are potentially one of the most constraining forms of limits. In 7 states, their effect is limited to a 

reassessment rollback provision with characteristics similar to full-disclosure requirements. Because their intent 

is to constrain rather than to eliminate growth, levy limits use specified formulas or mechanisms for determining 

the allowable level of annual growth in revenues. At least 15 states peg growth to a fixed maximum rate of 

change. Four states include an adjustment for price inflation (one limits the increase to the lesser of inflation or a 

fixed percentage), 3 states limit growth to the growth in the tax base, and 2 states impose a fixed dollar amount. 

There are exclusions through which additional revenue may be generated outside of the levy cap. Debt service is the most common exclusion (12 states), followed by growth generated by annexations, improvements, or 

new construction (9 states). Less widespread exclusions are for capital improvements, contractual obligations, 

emergencies, transportation, mandates, voter-approved levies, and home rule jurisdictions. General override provisions tend toward majority (12 states)* or supermajority (2 states) approval in a popular referendum. Two states 

rely on appeals to a state board or commission, or court approval. 

'Idaho's 1979 limitation was repealed in 1992 and Utah's 1969 limitation was repealed in 1986. 

*Indiana's popular referendum override applies only to school districts, and Mississippi requires a supermajority for 

school districts and a simple majority for counties and municipalities. 

Occurrence 

Prior to 1978: 11 

1978 or after: 17 

Scope 

Units Applied to: 

Counties: 23 

Municipalities: 23 

School: 14 

States Limiting All:, 14 

Growth Provisions 

Fixed Percent: 15 

Base Growth: 3 

Inflation: 4 

Fixed $ Amount: 2 

Limited to 

Reassessment 

Rollback: 7 

Exclusions 

~~ 

Debt Service: 12 

Annexation, 

Improvements & 

Construction: 9 

Capital 

Improvements: 2 

Contracts: 2 

Emergencies: 2 

Mandates: 1 

Home Rule: 1 

Override Provisions 

Popular Referenda: 

Simple Majority: 12 

Supermajority: 2 

State Board: 1 

Court Appeal: 1 

30 
Table 4 

Limitations on Property Tax Revenue (Levy) Increases 

State Effective Year Description (as amended) 

Alaska 

Municipalities 1972 May not levy taxes that will result in revenues exceeding 

$1,500 a year per resident; or no more than 225% of average per capita assessed full and true value of property in the 

state multiplied by the number of residents of the taxing 

municipality. Limit applies to levy for operating expenses. 

Arizona 

Counties and Municipalities 1913 Original limit of 10% increase replaced and strengthened in 

1980. Counties, cities, charter cities, towns, and community 

college districts cannot levy taxes in excess of 2% over 

maximurn allowable amount in prior year. Limit increased 

each year to maximum permissible whether or not taxing 

unit levied maximum amount. Limit may be exceeded by 

popular vote. 

(am1 980) 

Arkansas 

Counties, Municipalities 1981 

and School Districts 

Rollback provision. When countywide reassessment results 

in 10% or more increase in property value, rates are adjusted so no taxing unit receives an amount more than 10% 

greater than the previous year’s revenue. 

Colorado 

Counties and Municipalities 1913 

Counties, Municipalities 

and School Districts 

1992 

Annual property tax revenue levy limited to 5.5% increase. 

(Original limit 5%; 7% in 1976; reduced to 5.5% in 1987.) 

Excluded from limit: increased valuation due to annexation, improvements, and new construction. Limit does not 

apply to revenue for long-term capital expenditures, debt 

service, and voter-approved contractual obligations. Taxing 

district may submit proposal to exceed limit to electorate; 

requires majority vote. Home rule municipalities exempt. 

Constitutional amendment (“TABOR”) limits maximum 

annual percentage increase in property tax revenue. Maximum change equals “TABOR Index,” inflation in prior year 

(CPI for BouldedDenver area) plus annual local growth, 

adjusted for: (1) property tax revenue changes approved by 

voters after 1992 and (2) certain reductions. Statutory limit 

in effect; whichever is most restrictive takes effect. 

31 
State Effective Year Description (as amended) 

Delaware 

Counties 1972 Rollback provision. After county reassessment, tax rate 

levied may not yield revenues greater than 15% in excess of 

taxes imposed for prior fiscal year. 

Idaho 

Counties, Municipalities 1979 Limited increase to 5% based on greatest amount of ad valorem taxes in three preceding years. Approval for excessive 

levy requires 2/3 majority vote. Full disclosure provision 

that replaced levy limit is significantly weaker. 

and School Districts (repealed 1992) 

Illioois 

Counties, Municipalities 1991 

and School Districts 

Limits inciease in property tax “extensions” to 5% or percentage increase in CPI, whichever is less. (Extension = 

amount of tax bill sent to taxpayers.) Limit amount based 

on highest aggregate extension in any of last three years. 

Any increase above limit must be approved by voter referendum and will be in effect for one levy year only. 

Excludes debt service, and new and annexed property. 

(Non-home rule taxing districts located 

entirely in counties contiguous to 

Cook County or if majority of equalized 

assessed value is in contiguous counties.) 

Indiana 

Counties, Municipalities I973 

and School Districts 

(am1977) 

(am 1980) 

Originally, counties (and civil units) that adopted local 

income tax had property tax levy frozen at 1973 level. Nonadopting counties limited to the 1973 rate (levies limited to 

growth in assessed value). School district levies frozen at 

the 1973 level. 

1977 revision provided that all counties (and civil units) 

could increase property tax levy by 5% in 1978, 8% in 

1979, and 0% in 1980. 

1980 revision limits growth of revenue for civil units to 

average increase in assessed value over previous three 

years, excluding reassessment years. Minimum 5% and 

maximum 10% increases enforced. Excludes debt service 

and cumulative funds. For school districts, growth limited 

to average increase in assessed value over previous two 

years. Certain adjustments provided. Additional state supplement may be periodically authorized. Excludes debt service and transportation funds. Capital project and special 

education hnds subject to rate limit. All taxing units may 

appeal to State Board of Tax Commissioners to exceed 

limit. School corporations may exceed limit via voter referendum. 

32 
State 

~~ 

Effective Year Description (as amended) 

Kansas 

Counties and Municipalities 1970 Original limit prohibited rates that would produce amount 

in excess of aggregate amount levied in prior year. Limit 

could be exceeded by voter referendum or appeal to State 

Board. 

(suspended 1989) 

1989 

1977-State Attorney General stated that counties and 

municipalities could modify limit because it was not 

applied uniformly due to the many exemptions and, therefore, was not binding. 

1989-rollback provision enacted in conjunction with 

statewide reappraisal-no taxing unit shall certify tax levy 

(rate) on aggregate tangible property that will produce 

amount in excess of prior year. Excludes new construction 

and property improvements, increases in personal property 

valuations, annexation, debt, judgments, social security and 

employee benefits, and juvenile detention. 

Kentucky 

Counties, Municipalities 1979 

and School Districts 

Rollback provision. After annual reassessment, tax rate 

must be adjusted to limit growth in revenue to 4% over 

prior year. Excludes growth from new property. If revenue 

increases more than 4%, voters may petition for referendum to reconsider rate. 

Louisiana 

Counties, Municipalities 1978 

and School Districts 

Rollback provision. After statewide reassessment, revenues 

shall not exceed amount collected in prior year. Each taxing 

unit must adjust rates. Rates remain in effect unless 

increase up to prior year’s maximum rate is approved by 

213 of governing body. Excludes debt service. 

Massachusetts 

Municipalities 1980 Limits annual property tax revenue increases to 2.5% over 

prior year. Excludes growth from annexation, new construction, and improvements. Specified increase over limit 

may be authorized by 2/3 vote at general election. 

1983 amendment provided that voters may exclude existing 

or new debt service with majority vote. 

(am1983) 

33 
State Effective Year Description (as amended) 

Michigan 

Counties, Municipalities 1978 

and School Districts 

Rollback provision. Following reassessment, if tax base 

increases, maximum authorized rate must be lowered to 

produce revenue equal to prior year, after accounting for 

inflation through CPI. Excludes growth from new construction and improvements. Revenue increase equal to increase 

in inflation rate permitted. Revenue may increase above 

inflation rate if voters approve override and restore maximum authorized rate. Excludes debt service. 

Mississippi 

Counties and Municipalities 1980 Political subdivisions limited to 10 percent increase over 

the greatest amount of ad valorem taxes collected by the 

subdivision in any of the preceding 3 years. Increases due 

to new construction and additions to the tax rolls are 

excluded. Prior to July 1, 1994, overrides were possible by 

(I) majority electoral approval for a limit of five years 

(with the approved excess excluded from calculating future 

year’s base) and (2) by authorization of county board of 

supervisors, if aggregate receipts from all levies of subdivisions in the county do not exceed 100 percent of the levy in 

any one of the preceding 3 fiscal years. After July 1, override is limited to popular referenda. Exclusions exist for: 

school district tax levies, g.0. debt principal and interest, 

first year of new state mandated programs, county cooperative service districts, some fire protection, fire and police 

disability, reappraisal costs, junior college debt repayment, 

public libraries, and parking facility tax districts. County 

bridge and road construction is similarly limited through 

separate legislation as are maximum increases for mandatory levies “required by law” to be assess by counties and 

municipalities. 

School district levy increases prior to June 30, 1994, were 

limited to 5 percent above the highest aggregate levy in any 

one of the previous three fiscal years. Override available 

through 315 majority electoral approval. Exclusions exist 

for: new construction, additions to tax rolls, g.0. school 

debt and first year of new state mandated programs. July 1, 

1994, through June 30, 1996, limit increases to 6%; after 

June 30, 1996, limit increases to 7%. (County and municipal levy caps apply for mandatory components of school 

tax effort.) 

School Districts 1983 

(am 1990) 

34 
State Effective Year Description (as amended) 

Missouri 

Counties, Municipalities 1980 

and School Districts 

Rollback provision. Following reassessment, if assessed 

value increases by more than increase in general price level 

from previous year, tax rates must be reduced to produce 

same revenue as prior year. Excludes growth from new 

construction and improvements. Inflationary growth factor 

cannot exceed CPI or 5%, whichever is lower. Excludes 

debt service. Voter referendum may authorize excess levy. 

Montana 

Counties and Municipalities 1987 Amount of taxes levied may not exceed dollar amount 

levied in 1986 in each taxing unit. For tax years after 1989, 

property must be taxed at 1986 cap or the product of the 

taxable value and mills levied, whichever is less. New construction and improvementddeletions taxed at 1986 level. 

Excludes debt service. 

Nebraska 

Counties and Municipalities 1990 Budgeted property tax receipts may not exceed prior year 

by more than 5%, unless increase is approved by majority 

of the voters. Excludes debt service. (Increases that reflect 

CPI or up to 5% may be authorized by governing board.) 

Nevada 

Counties and Municipalities 1983 Revenue growth limited to a 6% increase. Excludes debt 

service. Excludes growth from new construction, improvements, etc. (Limit originally 4.5%, increased 1987.) 

(am1987) 

New Jersey 

Counties I980 Tax levies may not increase by more than 5% over prior 

year, with following exceptions: increases in value from 

new construction and improvements, emergency appropriations, debt service, expenditures mandated by state or federal law, contracts, and capital expenditures funded outside 

county tax levy. 

New Mexico 

Counties, Municipalities 1979 

and School Districts 

Tax levies may not increase by more than 5% over prior 

year. Excludes debt service. 

35 
State Effective Year Description (as amended) 

North Dakota 

Counties and Municipalities 1981 Allowable percentage increase originally limited to 7% in 

1981,4% in 1983,3% in 1985,5% in 1988; as of 1991,4% 

over the highest of the three previous years. Adjustments 

for property added or removed from roll since the base 

year. 

Ohio 

Counties, Municipalities 1976 

and School Districts 

Subject to levy limitation are voter-approved millage 

increases above overall inside millage of 10 mills (1%). 

Any voted millage capped so revenue produced does not 

increase above that for first year. Excludes new growth. 

Limit may be exceeded by voter referendum, up to a specified period of time. 

Oregon 

Counties, Municipalities 

and School Districts 

1916 

(as amended) 

No taxing unit shall raise more revenue than its tax base, 

which is: (1) the amount obtained by adding 6% to the total 

amount levied in any one of the last three years or (2) an 

amount approved as new tax base by majority of the legal 

voters. After voter-approved amount is fully levied, tax 

base can grow 6% a year. Excludes debt service. If tax base 

not sufficient, voters may approve additional levy authority: special levy to balance the budget for one fiscal year; 

serial levy for general or special purposes, stated as total 

dollar amount either to be levied uniformly for a 5 or 10- 

year period or per $1,000 a.v. and levied up to 3 years. 

School districts may levy “safety net levy” without voter 

approval. This amount is outside tax base and must equal 

prior year. 

Pennsylvania 

Counties 

(Limited application to 

Municipalities 

and School Districts) 

Circa 1940 Rollback provision. Following county reassessment or 

change in established predetermined ratio, political subdivisions in counties of 2ndA and 3rd class must reduce rate 

so amount levied does not exceed 110% of prior year. 

Excludes growth from new construction and improvements. Same restrictions apply in counties of the 4th-8th 

class, with percentage not to exceed 105% (school districts 

limited to 10%). Limit may be exceeded with court 

approval. 

36 
State Effective Year Description (as amended) 

Rhode Island 

Municipalities 1985 Municipality may not levy amount more than 5.5% over 

prior year. May exceed 5.5% if municipality forecasts loss 

in total property tax revenue, an emergency situation, and 

debt service higher than 5.5%. Excess levy requires majority vote of electorate. 

Texas 

Counties, Municipalities 1982 

and School Districts 

Rollback provision. Following reassessment, taxing unit 

must calculate rolled back rate to provide same amount of 

revenue as prior year for operating and maintenance, plus 

8% “buffer” and sufficient funds to pay current debt. If unit 

adopts higher rate, voters can petition for election to roll 

back increase to 8%. Limit not automatically enforced; 

requires voter referendum in opposition. School district 

limitation applies to following year’s rate. Some school districts permitted to set rates greater than the rollback rate. 

Utah 

Counties, Municipalities 1969 Tax levy for any taxing unit originally limited to 106% of 

prior year’s revenue for operation and maintenance. Limit 

replaced with weaker full disclosure provision. 

andschool Districts (repealed 1986) 

Washington 

Counties, Municipalities 1971 

and School Districts 

Originally limited counties and municipalities to 106% of 

amount levied in highest of 3 past years, plus additional 

amount that considered growth from new construction, 

improvements, etc. 

(am 1979) 1979 amendment included school districts. Excess levy 

authorized by a majority vote of electorate. 

West Virginia 

Counties, Municipalities 1990 

and School Districts 

After reassessment, tax rates must be reduced to avoid 

increase greater than 1% over previous year. Excludes 

growth from new construction, etc. Governing body may 

increase rate with full disclosure provisions (no hearing = 

automatic rollback). Tax rate may not cause revenue to 

exceed prior year by more than 10%. 

37 

GENERAL 

Limits on assessment increases are 

intended to restrict local government’s ability 

to “automatically” garner increased revenues 

from rising property values and/or windfalls 

from reassessments. The limit is generally 

expressed as an allowable annual percentage 

increase in assessed value. Six states impose 

limits on assessment increases (Arizona, California, Iowa, Maryland, New Mexico, and 

New York). An assessment limitation will go 

into effect in Florida in 1995 (see Table 5). 

HISTORICAL TREND 

All of the assessment limitations were 

enacted in 1978 or later except Maryland’s 6 

percent limit, implemented in 1957. Most 

assessment limits were enacted at a time of 

rapid appreciation of property values. In 1980, 

Iowa made its limit more restrictive by reducing the allowed percentage increase from 6 

percent to 4 percent. In 1991, Maryland 

removed its limit on statewide assessment 

increases and gave discretion over limits to 

counties and municipalities (school districts 

are unaffected). 

STRUCTURE 

Allowable percentage increases range 

from up to 10 percent (Arizona, Maryland) to 2 

percent (California). The increases in several 

states depend on other variables, as well. For 

example: 

In California, property assessments 

may increase with inflation (as represented by the CPI) up to 2 percent a 

year. If inflation is less than 2 percent, 

the assessment increase is equivalent 

to that percentage. 

The Florida limit will apply to the 

lower of a 3 percent increase over the 

prior year’s assessment or the percentage increase in the CPI. 

Maryland local jurisdictions may 

reduce the state-authorized limit of 10 

percent to as low as zero. 

New York assessment increases for 

Class I residential property in New 

York City and Nassau County are 

limited to 6 percent in any one year or 

20 percent over a five-year period. 

Four states (Arizona, California, Maryland, New York) apply the assessment limit 

individually to pieces of property. This is 

potentially much more restrictive than an 

aggregate limitation. Aggregate limitations 

allow slow growth or declines in the value of 

some parcels to be offset by larger increases in 

others, resulting in a larger assessment 

increase. Florida’s limitation, effective in 

1995, also will contain the provision. Iowa has 

opted for a statewide assessment limit applied 

separately to each class of property to maintain 

distribution factors.12 

Depending on their structure, assessment 

limitations can create equity problems. For 

instance, California provides that when a piece 

of property is sold, the assessed value increases 

to market value. This acquisition value tax sys39 
tem creates a disparity between market value 

and assessed value that results in property tax 

payments determined by length of home ownership. The system was challenged under the 

Equal Protection Clause of the United States 

Constitution, and in June 1992 the U.S. 

Supreme Court upheld the assessment features 

in Nordlinger v. Hahn (112 S.Ct. 2326, 1992). 

I 

OTHER 

In an effort to limit tax base growth, 

assessment limitations tend to focus on allowable percentage increases. Other features, such 

as assessment ratios, may be used to counter 

property tax growth. For example, Colorado 

requires voter approval for assessment ratio 

increases for a property class. 

Assessing practices also can have an 

impact on growth. Michigan’s “Truth in 

Assessment” provision, effective 1982, provides that if state equalized value is greater 

than assessed value, the maximum authorized 

millage rate must be rolled back so that the 

levy on the equalized value does not exceed 

the product of assessed value and the maximum rate. The purpose is to prevent cities and 

townships from benefiting by increased tax 

levies that are a result of the equalization 

process. A reduced maximum rate applies if 

the assessing jurisdiction does not assess at the 

required 50 percent of true cash value.13 

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT LIMITS - SUMMARY PROFILE 

Seven states limit property tax assessments.l Six of the limits were enacted after 1971 and are still in effect. 

Three of the states arz in the West. Four states apply the limit to individual parcels; 2 states apply it to growth in 

the aggregate property base; and 2 states limit only the increase in assessments for residential property. Five states 

limit allowable growth to a fixed percentage of the base; one state uses the lower of a fixed percentage increment 

or CPI. The average allowable increase is 5.3%. Common exclusions are increases due to improvements and new 

construction. Two states allow full reassessment at the time of sale or change in ownership (unless change is 

among immediate family members).2 One state has an override by popular referendum. 

Maryland’s 1957 limits on assessment increases repealed in 1991. 

New York’s limit applies only to taxing units with a million or more population. 

Occurrence 

Prior to 1978: 1 

1978 or after: 6 

Base 

Individual Parcel: 4 

Aggregate: 2 

Residential Only: 2 

Growth Provisions Exclusions 

Fixed Percent: 5 

Range: 2% - 10% 

Average: 5.86% 

Fixed percent 

orCPI: 1 

Reassessment on 

Sale: 2 

ImprovementsMew 

Construction: 6 

I 

Override Provisions 

Popular Referenda: 

Simple majority: 1 

40 
Table 5 

Limitations on Assessment Increases 

State Effective Year Descriptionrnate (as amended) 

Arizona 1980 Assessment increases limited to property value of prior 

year plus the greater of (1) 10% of value or (2) 25% of difference between current-year full cash value and prior-year 

limited value. Assessment limit applied on individual 

parcels. Limit may be exceeded by voter approval. Assessment may increase through improvements or changes in 

use. 

California 1978 After Proposition 13, assessed value of all property rolled 

back to 1975-76 value-full cash value base may increase 

with inflation (CPI) up to 2% a year. On sale of property or 

when new construction completed, assessment increases to 

market value. Limit imposed individually. 

Florida 1995 1992 initiative constitutional amendment limited assessments on homestead property to the lower of (1) 3% of 

prior-year assessment or (2) the percent increase in CPI. 

Following change in ownership, property assessed at “just 

value.” Limit applied individually. Assessments may 

increase through improvements. 

Iowa 1978 

(am 1980) 

Original statewide assessment increases limited to 6%; 

reduced to 4% in 1980. Limit applied separately to classes 

of property (residential, agricultural, and commercial). 

Excludes new construction. 

~~ 

Maryland 1957 

(am 199 l) 

Original statewide assessment increase limited to 6%. 

Effective 1991, limit on assessable base removed; all market value assessments at 40% with no general limit. 

Assessed value increases on individual owner-occupied 

residences limited. State, county, and municipal property 

tax subjected to this limit. State portion capped at 10% 

increase. Counties and municipalities set limit from zero to 

10%. If they fail to do so, cap defaults to 10%. School districts not affected. 

41 
State Effective Year Description/Rate (as amended) 

New Mexico 1979 Increases limited to 5%. “Yield control formula” limits 

property tax revenue from yearly reappraisals. Assessment 

may not result in revenue greater than derived from formula, typically 5%. Exempts new construction and improvements. 

New York 1981 

1986 

Limit applies only to taxing units with population of 1 million or more-Nassau County (1981) and New York City 

(1 986). Increases for Class I property (1,2, or 3-family residential housing) limited to 6% in one year or 20% over 5 

years. Increases for Class I1 property (all other residential) 

limited to 8% in one year or 30% over 5 years. Separate 

allowable increases for Class 111 and IV property. Limit on 

individual pieces of property. Exempts improvements 

42 
GENERAL 

Limitations on annual increases in general 

revenues and general expenditures are more 

comprehensive and restrictive than other limits, and they are used least. General revenues 

refers to property tax revenue plus one or 

more other local revenue sources, excluding 

federal intergovernmental aid. The limitations 

generally are expressed as allowable percentage increases (see Table 6 and Table 7). All of 

the state general limits were enacted after 1970 

except Arizona’s (1921). 

STRUCTURE 

Revenue Limits 

Minnesota and Nevada restricted allowable general revenue increases for counties and 

municipalities, and both recently repealed their 

limits. Minnesota’s overall revenue limit, 

effective in 197 1 and repealed in 1992, included state aid and property tax receipts. Allowable percentage increases fluctuated. Nevada’s 

revenue limit, effective in 1984 and repealed in 

1989, applied to sales and property tax 

receipts. Allowable increases were a function 

of growth in assessed value and inflation. 

In contrast, Colorado’s 1992 limit does 

not define an allowable increase but constrains 

revenues by requiring voter approval of any 

new tax or increase in an existing tax. Furthermore, revenue growth is limited by a district’s 

spending limit. Revenues in excess of the 

spending limit must be refunded unless voters 

approve the excess. 

Expenditure Limits 

Limits on general expenditures have been 

used more widely than limits on general revenues, with most of them on school districts. 

Four states impose the limit exclusively on 

school districts and four restrict school districts 

in addition to counties andor municipalities. In 

New Jersey and Arizona, school district spending limits have unique provisions and structures. These limits usually are part of state 

education funding systems, and generally were 

enacted for one or more of the following reasons: 

Reduce the local tax burden; 

Constrain growth of per-pupil spending in fiscally advantaged districts; 

and 

Equalize the spending between 

Growth in general expenditures may be 

restricted by limiting total budget amounts, 

appropriations for expenditures, or actual 

spending. California limits growth in “annual 

appropriations” and New Jersey limits “final 

appropriations,” while Arizona limits the total 

amount of proposed county and municipal 

expenditures. On the other hand, Kansas 

restricts school district actual spending on a 

per-pupil basis. 

school districts.14 

43 
Overrides 

Override provisions mitigate the restrictive effect of spending limits by providing a 

mechanism through which to reflect local 

interests and preferences. Excess expenditures 

may be approved by voter referendum in Arizona, California (for up to four years), Iowa, 

Kansas, Minnesota, and New Jersey. School 

boards have override mechanisms less frequently. Kansas school boards may appeal to 

the state Board of Tax Appeals to override the 

per pupil spending limit. Iowa school boards 

may authorize an “additional instructional support levy” for up to five years. 

Growth Rates 

An important structural feature of each 

limit is the allowable increase. None of the 

eight states with spending limits link allowable 

growth solely to a fixed rate. Rather, expenditure limits also attempt to maintain a base level 

adjusted for changes in inflation and population. In some cases, these provisions were 

amendments to the original limit. For example: 

Arizona’s limit on counties and 

municipalities was changed from a 

flat 10 percent increase to one that 

reflects the GNP price deflator and 

population growth. The limit on 

school districts was restructured from 

a 7 percent increase to an amount 

determined by inflation and changes 

in student enrollment. 

Colorado’s growth index incorporates 

inflation and annual local growth. 

In New Jersey, a 1991 amendment 

strengthened the limit on municipalities from a flat 5 percent increase to 

the lesser of 5 percent over the previous year’s total appropriations or the 

percentage change in inflation. 

A 1990 California amendment established less restrictive adjustments to 

determine the allowable growth in 

appropriations. 

California’s constitutional spending limit 

(Art. XIIIB) is an example of how the determination of the allowable increase can jeopardize 

fiscal solvency and service delivery. In 1979, 

the limitation received 74 percent of the 

statewide vote and passed in every county. 

Taxpayers appreciated the more comprehensive spending limit, which restricts both state 

and local appropriations of “proceeds of 

taxes,” rather than Proposition 13’s singular 

focus on the property tax.15 

California’s expenditure growth was limited to the previous year’s appropriations 

adjusted for changes in cost-of-living and population. Initially, high inflation increased the 

spending limit while the economic recession 

caused reductions in total tax revenues. As a 

result, the limit had little impact until 1986-87, 

when inflationary growth diminished, tax revenues increased, and appropriations continued 

to grow. The state exceeded its spending limit, 

forcing a $1.1 billion refund to taxpayers. 

Additionally, 55 cities were at or within 10 percent of their limits, and six counties were within 5 percent of their limits.16 Thus, the 

allowable growth proved to be insensitive to 

environmental change. 

In 1990, therefore, California growth 

adjustments were modified to be linked more 

closely to the rate of economic growth. Currently, cost-of-living is measured by changes in 

state per capita personal income rather than 

changes in the CPI. Local governments, 

excluding school districts, have the option to 

use the percentage change in local assessed 

value from growth in non-residential property 

as a measure. Other liberalizing changes 

excluded expenditures for all qualified capital 

outlay projects and those resulting from 

increases in the gasoline tax. 

44 
GENERAL REVENUE LIMITS - SUMMARY PROFILE 

Growth Provisions 

General revenue limits, including all tax proceeds and in one instance state aid, are among the most constraining of local limitations. They are a recent phenomenon and have not been widely applied4 states instituted 

them (2 each in the West and Midwest), but 2 states recently repealed them. These limits more often have been 

applied to counties and municipalities (only one state recently applied them to school districts as well). Allowable 

growth provisions include (1) restriction on any new tax or rate increase without voter approval, (2) specifying 

allowable growth as a fixed percentage (or a fixed dollar amount per pupil), and (3) limiting growth to growth in 

the tax base or rate of price inflation. Exclusions have included special assessments and special levies, debt service, and court judgments. Two states provide for an override through popular referendum. 

Exclusions 

Occurrence 

Occurrence 

Prior to 1978: 1 

1978 or after: 3 

Scope 

Scope 

Units Applied to: 

Counties: 3 

Municipalities: 3 

School: 2 

States Limiting All: 1 

Growth Provisions 

Fixed Percent/$: 2 

Base Growth: 1 

InflationlCPI: 2 

No New Tax or 

Rate Increase: 1 

Exclusions 

Debt Service: 1 

Special 

Assessments: 1 

Court Judgments: 1 

Override Provisions 

Popular Referendum: 

Simple Majority: 2 

GENERAL EXPENDITURE LIMITS - SUMMARY PROFILE 

General expenditure limits are used in 8 states. Six of these were enacted before 1978. The Midwest leads 

with 4 states, followed by 3 states in the West, and one in the Northeast. This limit has been directed toward school 

districts in all 8 states, followed by municipalities in 4 states and counties in 3 states. Three states limit all types of 

local government. Provisions for expenditure growth depend on a combination of factors, including allowable 

growth equal to a specified fixed percentage over the previous year’s base (3 states) sometimes combined in a formula with price inflation (3 states), or based on growth in the property base (2 states), income (2 states), or number 

of pupils (3 states) adjusted for an education index. Exemptions include debt service, state and federal mandates, 

emergency expenditures, special education programs, special district expenditures, and contracts. Six states permit 

overrides through popular referendum; one allows the local legislative body to do so through a simple majority 

vote and another vests a state board of tax appeals with the authority. 

~ ~ 

Prior to 1978: 6 

1978 or after: 2 

Units Applied to: 

Counties: 3 

Municipalities: 4 

School: 8 

States Limiting All: 3 

Fixed Percent: 3 

InflatiodCPI: 3 

Base Growth: 2 

Income: 2 

Pupils: 3 

Debt Service: 2 

Mandates: 2 

Emergencies: 2 

Special Districts: 2 

Special Education: 2 

Contracts: 2 

Override Provisions 

Popular Referendum: 

Simple Majority: 6 

Legislative: 

Simple Majority: 1 

State Board: 1 

45 
Table 6 

Limitations on General Revenue Increases 

State Effective Year Description (as amended) 

Colorado 

Counties, Municipalities 1992 

and School Districts 

Constitutional amendment requires voter approval for new 

tax or tax rate increase. If revenue sources not excluded 

from fiscal year spending exceed spending limit for that fiscal year, excess must be refunded in following fiscal year, 

unless voters approve a revenue change as an offset. 

Minnesota 

Counties and Municipalities 1971 197 1 - 1979-general revenue limit restricted increases to 

6% (including revenues from state aid and property taxes). 

1980, limit increased to 8%. 

1989, limit lowered to 4%; 3% thereafter. 

Exempted special assessments and numerous special property tax levies (e.g., debt service and payment of judgments). Limit applied to all counties, cities with population 

of 2,500 or more, towns with population of 5,000 or more, 

and all municipalities that received taconite municipal aid. 

(repealed 1992-93) 

Nevada 

Counties and Municipalities 1984 Revenue limit applied to general revenue received from 

city-county relief tax (sales tax) and property tax. Allowable increases determined by growth in assessed value and 

80% of CPI of preceding year. 

(repealed 1989) 

Wisconsin 

School Districts 1993-94 School revenue limited on per pupil basis: 

FY 92/93 to FY 93/94 increase cannot exceed greater of 

3.2% (rate of inflation) or $190 per pupil. 

FY 94/95 increase limited to 2.3% or $194 per pupil, 

whichever is greater. Voter overrides are provided. Revenue defined as general state aid plus property tax levy. 

46 
Table 7 

Limitations on General Expenditure Increases 

State Effective Year Description (as amended) 

Arizona 

Counties and Municipalities 1921 Originally prevented budget that exceeded by more than 

(am 1980) 10% total amount proposed for expenditures in prior year. 

School Districts 1974 

(am 198 1) 

1980-growth in expenditures limited to reflect change in 

GNP price deflator and population growth. Specific expenditure in excess of limit may be approved by 2/3 vote of 

governing body and majority popular vote. Limit may be 

adjusted to incorporate transferred costs of providing government functions. 

198 I-7% expenditure limit on general maintenance and 

operating budget replaced. Legislature determines aggregate expenditure limit for each district by adjusting base 

limit to reflect changes in student population and GNP 

price deflator. Excess expenditures may be approved by 

majority popular vote. 

California 

Counties, Municipalities 1979 Original limit was amount appropriated in prior year adjusted by lesser of (1) change in state per capita personal 

income or (2) change in US. CPI and change in population. 

Current, less restrictive adjustments: (1) cost of living factor (growth in state per capita personal income) or (2) percentage growth in total assessed value due to 

non-residential new construction. Limit applies to all tax 

revenues-sales, income, property-and “technically” any 

fees collected in excess of cost of service. Excludes “emergencies,” debt service, mandates, and certain special districts. Revenue received in excess of amount appropriated 

must be rehnded within two years. Limit may be exceeded 

with voter approval up to four years. 

and School District (am 1990) 

Colorado 

School Districts 1973 School Finance Act originally allowed increase between 

1% and 12% and covered revenues from property tax and 

state equalization. Several changes occurred. Current limit 

controlled by 1992 constitutional amendment (TABOR). 

Counties, Municipalities 1 992 

and School Districts 

Maximum annual percentage change in each district’s fiscal 

year spending equals the TABOR index (inflation in prior 

year plus annual local growth) adjusted for voter-approved 

revenue changes and certain reductions. Fiscal year spending means all district expenditures and reserve increases. 

47 
State 

~ ~~ 

Effective Year Description (as amended) 

Iowa 

School Districts 1971 Per pupil expenditure control on school district budget 

(general fund). Provision to determine annual allowable 

growth includes state foundation formula (district cost per 

pupil), miscellaneous component, and unspent balance. 

Additional support levy may be authorized by school board 

for up to five years and by voters for up to ten years. Voter 

referendum may override entire limit. 

Kansas 

School Districts 1973 Limit applied to school district general fund. Allowable 

percentage of growth of per pupil expenditures has had 

many changes. The limit may be overridden by voter referendum or by appeal to the State Board of Tax Appeals. 

Minnesota 

School Districts 1971 School district spending restricted by maximum levy rate 

determined by state. Rate revised many times. General education tax rate may be exceeded by voter referendum. 

Nebraska 

School Districts 1991 School districts limited to 4% allowable growth rate for 

general fund expenditures, except for special education. 

Annual rates established by legislature based on projections 

of state revenue, cost of living, and education indices. 

New Jersey 

Municipalities 

School Districts 

1976 

(am 1 99 1 ) 

Prohibits increase from final appropriations of whole budget by more than 5% over prior year, except emergency 

appropriations, debt service, state or federal mandated 

expenditures, and contracts. Exempts municipalities with 

less than 10 mill general purpose levy. Limit may be 

exceeded by referendum. 

1976 

(am 1 990) 

1991-limit strengthened, limiting increase to the lesser of 

5% or the change in CPI. 

Original limit allowed spending to increase up to 75% of 

annual percentage change of statewide assessed value for 

previous three years. 

1990-more restrictive “Maximum Permissible Net Budget” replaced 1976 limit; new limit determined by PNB = 

PCI * PR * PBY. PCI - average annual percentage increase 

in per capita income; PR - ratio of district local levy budget 

of prebudget year to maximum foundation budget for budget year; PBY - net budget for prebudget year. 

48 
FULL DISCLOSURE/TRUTH-IN-TAXATION 

GENERAL 

Full disclosure is the least restrictive 

form of local limit. When adopting tax rates, 

local governments must comply with provisions that have two principal purposes: 

(1) To increase taxpayer awareness of 

rate proposals and provide an opportunity for taxpayer participation; and 

(2) To direct responsibility for property 

tax increases toward the appropriate 

local governments. 

Essentially, a governing body is required 

to advertise in a local newspaper information 

pertaining to proposed tax rates along with an 

establishedhollback rate. The rollback rate 

yields the same amount of revenue as the previous year, excluding new growth. It is intended to draw attention to the relationship 

between the tax levy, assessment, and tax rate. 

The announcement must include the time and 

place of one or more public hearings, and the 

legislature is required to take specific action 

(vote) to exceed the rollback rate and, thus, 

increase revenue received from the existing 

base. 

imposed the limit in the 1980s. The most 

recent additions include Georgia (1 99 l), Idaho 

(1 991), Nebraska (1 990), and West Virginia 

(1 990). 

Colorado’s 1992 constitutional amendment strengthened an earlier provision while 

redefining the capacity and scope of truth-intaxation by making many decisions subject to 

popular vote and linking it to many more 

restrictive measures. Included in these is a 

requirement for voters to approve: 

. Any new tax or tax rate increase; 

Any mill levy above that for the prior 

year; 

Valuation for assessment ratio 

increase for a property class; 

Extension of an expiring tax; or 

A tax policy change directly causing 

a net tax revenue gain to any district. 

Information sent to the voters must include 

spending for the current year and the past four 

years, estimates of the dollar amount of each 

tax increase, district spending without the 

increase, and other financial information.17 

HISTORICAL TREND 

Twenty-two states impose “truth-in-taxation” provisions. Hawaii, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia impose only these 

provisions, with no other limitations. This 

form of limitation originated in the 1970s as a 

reaction to rapidly increasing property valuation. Ten states implemented the provision during the 1970s and eight additional states 

STRUCTURE 

There are three primary forms of disclosure: 

(1) Annual Assessment. Establishment 

of an annual property tax rate that when 

applied to the prior year’s tax roll will produce 

revenue equal to the prior year’s levy. In three 

states (Michigan, Virginia, West Virginia), tax 

rates must be rolled back to prevent an auto49 
matic increase in revenue due solely to increases in the assessed value of the existing base. 

This rate can be exceeded only by vote of the 

local governing board after a public notification and hearing. * 8 

(2) Periodic Reassessment. Truth-intaxation rollbacks, by which some states 

(Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Texas) calculate 

a “rollback rate” following reassessment to offset inflationary increases. The rollback and 

proposed rates must be published prior to the 

public hearing. 

(3) Informational. Provision of information on the proposed tax rates and subsequent budget (Iowa, Nevada, Montana, 

Minnesota). 

Full disclosure provisions do not prevent 

tax revenues from increasing as long as local 

governments comply with advertising and 

hearing requirements, with the exception of 

recall petitions in Kentucky and Texas and the 

linkage between full disclosure and more 

restrictive limits in Colorado. 

In Kentucky, if a local governing body 

approves a rate that increases revenue more 

than 4 percent over the previous year, the 

excessive portion of the rate is subject to a 

recall vote if voters petition for a referendum. 

In Texas, if local governments adopt a rate that 

produces an increase in revenue greater than 8 

percent over the previous year, voters may 

petition for an election to roll back the increase 

to 8 percent. 

Florida and Minnesota require that property tax notices be mailed to the homes of registered voters rather than published or 

distributed in a newspaper, This enhances taxpayer awareness and increases the effectiveness of the provision. 

Illinois is unique in that it does not focus 

specifically on the tax rate but allows a revenue increase of 5 percent before full disclosure provisions must be fulfilled. Similarly, 

Virginia and West Virginia rollback rates allow 

for a 1 percent increase. 

Although full disclosure is considered to 

be the least restrictive of tax and expenditure 

limitations, the informational characteristics 

have proven to be popular. In fact, two states 

(Idaho and Utah) enacted full disclosure provisions to replace revenue limits that were 

repealed in 1991 and 1986. 

50 
FULL DISCLOSURE LIMITS - SUMMARY PROFILE 

Full disclosure, the third most popular local limit, is relatively recent and is the least restrictive. A simple 

majority legislative vote may override the rollback (albeit at an open public hearing). This restriction requires only 

that the local legislative body or board be willing publicly to designate a revenue increase as a tax increase. In two 

cases, this provision is applied only in instances of general reassessments. 

Requirements for full disclosure have been enacted in 22 states, with 68% after 1978. This form of limitation is used most often in the South (10 states, 63%), followed by the West (6 states, 46%), and the Midwest (5 

states, 42%). This limit is used by only one state in the Northeast. It is applied to counties in 21 states, municipalities in 19 states, and school districts in 14 states. States that limit school districts also apply the provision to counties and cities. Exclusions include debt service; property base enhancements through new construction, 

improvements, or annexations; and allowable fixed percentage increases outside the necessity for disclosure 

requirements. 

Occurrence 

Prior to 1978: 7 

1978 or after: 15 

Scope 

~ ~~ ~ 

Units Applied to: 

Counties: 2 1 

Municipalities: 19 

School: 14 

States Limiting All: 14 

Limited to General Reassessment: 2 

Exclusions 

~ 

Debt Service: 2 

New ConstructiodAdditions: 2 

Annexation: 1 

Increases within a Specified Percent: 4 

I I 

51 
Table 8 

Full Disclosure/Truth-In-Taxation Provisions 

State Effective Year Description (as amended) 

Colorado 

Counties and Municipalities 1983 

Counties, Municipalities 1992 

and School Districts 

Requires (1) newspaper publications of intent to exceed tax 

limitations and (2) public hearings. 

Constitutional amendment requires voter approval in 

advance for any new tax or increase in existing tax. Districts must mail notice of ballot issue election to all registered voters 15-25 days prior to election. 

Delaware 

Counties (approx) 

1976 

Rollback provision is component of full disclosure requirements. Following total county reassessment, rolled back tax 

rate shall be computed that provides revenue equal to prior 

year. Difference between rolled back rate and proposed rate 

is advertised in newspaper prior to meeting to consider proposed rate. 

Florida 

Counties, Municipalities 1974 Full disclosure includes rollback provision. Following 

reassessment, a rolled back tax rate shall be computed that 

provides revenue equal to prior year. Excludes new construction, additions, deletions, and annexation. Rolled back 

rate and proposed millage rate included in property tax 

notice, which is advertised in newspaper and (effective 

1980) mailed to each taxpayer prior to public hearings. 

and School Districts (am 1980) 

Georgia 

Counties, Municipalities 1991 

and School Districts 

No millage rate may be levied for fiscal year until governing authority of district adopts resolution that specifies rate. 

Resolution must be adopted at advertised public meeting. 

Authority must advertise intent and announce public hearing if it proposes to establish rate in excess of rollback rate 

(rate that produces revenue levied in prior year minus value 

added by revaluation, new construction, etc.). 

52 
State Effective Year Description (as amended) 

Hawaii 

Counties 1977 Each county is provided with certified tax rate that produces same amount of revenue as current year when 

applied to forthcoming year’s aggregate value. County may 

increase or decrease the certified rate if there is an advertisement regarding intent, followed by public hearing. After 

the hearing, the county shall readvertise and reconvene to 

adopt adjusted rate. 

Idaho 

Counties, Municipalities 1991 

and School Districts 

This provision replaced levy limit. No taxing authority may 

request ad valorem levy that exceeds prior year by more 

than 105 percent; or cause tax rate to increase above prior 

year without (1) advertising intent and holding public hearing, (2) adopting a resolution, and (3) getting Tax Commission certification. Excludes debt service, overrides and 

supplemental levies, and annexations. 

Illinois 

Counties, Municipalities 1981 

and School Districts 

Requires all taxing units (except home rule) that wish to 

increase property tax revenue in excess of 5% over prior 

year, to provide notice and public hearing. Excludes debt 

service. 

Iowa 

Counties 1983 Advertised notice and public hearing required regarding 

county budget, which includes estimate of amount to be 

raised by property taxes. Board cannot adopt a tax in excess 

of the estimate published unless approved by voters. Original estimate at discretion of board. 

Kentucky 

Counties, Municipalities 1979 

and School Districts 

Full disclosure includes rollback provision. After annual 

reassessment, taxing authorities that propose to levy rate in 

excess of “compensating tax rate” must publish notice and 

hold hearing. Portion of tax rate that produces revenue from 

real property, exclusive of new property, over 4% of prior 

year is subject to recall vote or reconsideration if voters 

petition for a referendum. Rollback provision allows 4% 

increase in property tax revenue. 

53 
State 

~ ~ ~_____ 

Effective Year Description (as amended) 

Maryland 

Counties and Municipalities 1977 Taxing authority may not set rate that will exceed constant 

yield tax rate unless advertised in paper with notice of public hearing or announcement mailed to each taxpayer (not 

necessary if the rate is being increased due to reduced 

assessed value). 

Michigan 

Counties, Municipalities 1982 

and School Districts 

Requires that all jurisdictions that levied more than 1 mill 

in the prior year annually roll back tax rates for operating 

purposes to offset increase in values of existing property. 

Legislative body may reverse rollback and increase levy 

provided vote is preceded by public advertisement and 

hearing. 

Minnesota 

Counties, Municipalities 1988 

and School Districts 

Notice of proposed property taxes shall be mailed to each 

taxpayer and advertised in newspaper with notice of public 

meeting. At hearing, taxing authorities may amend proposals and adopt final budget and tax levy. Once adopted, levy 

may not be increased without voter approval. Authority 

may appeal to Commission of Revenue. 

Montana 

Counties, Municipalities 1974 

and School Districts 

No local authority may budget increased amount of property tax revenue unless it adopts a resolution; authority first 

must advertise and hold hearing. 

Nebraska 

Counties and Municipalities 1990 Provision prohibits adoption of budget in which property 

tax receipts exceed prior-year budget. Exceptions include 

debt service, accessibility barriers, and growth from new 

construction. Governing body may approve increase that 

reflects change in CPI by simple majority vote, and 

increase up to 5% by 314 majority vote. Increase above 5% 

requires majority popular vote. All votes require advertisement and public hearing. 

Nevada 

Counties, Municipalities 1985 Informational news notice and public hearing on proposed 

and School Districts tax rates and tentative budgets required. 

54 
State Effective Year Description (as amended) 

Rhode Island 

Municipalities 1979 Each municipality provides a public hearing and property 

tax disclosure proceedings; proposed and adjusted current 

property tax rate shall be published in newspaper. No property tax levy in excess of that amount of current fiscal year 

shall be adopted before public hearing. 

South Carolina 

Counties, Municipalities 1975 

and School Districts 

Following reassessment and equalization, tax levy may not 

exceed prior year by more than 1%. Excludes new growth. 

Rate may be increased to generate additional revenue in 

excess of limit for increased and/or additional services. 

1988-Tax Commission required to review collections 

from reassessment years to ensure compliance. 

Tennessee 

Counties and Municipalities 1979 Governing board may not approve tax rate in excess of certified rate until board approves resolution or ordinance after 

advertising intent and after public hearing. 

Texas 

Counties, Municipalities 1982 

and School Districts 

Revenue rollback is component of full disclosure provisions. Following reappraisal, each taxing unit must publish 

effective and rollback rates. Voters can petition for an election to roll back to 8% any rate that produces revenue 

increase greater than 8%. To increase taxes above rollback 

rate or by more than 3% above effective rate, unit must 

publish notice announcing hearing. Another hearing is provided for adoption of rate. For school districts, tax limit 

applies to following year’s rate. 

Utah 

Counties, Municipalities 1986 

and School Districts 

District that proposes rate in excess of “certified tax rate” 

(yields same amount of revenue as prior year) must advertise and hold hearing prior to levying rate. This limit 

replaced repealed levy limit. 

55 
State Effective Year Description (as amended) 

Virginia 

Counties and Municipalities 1976 Revenue rollback is a component of full disclosure provision. Following annual assessment or general reassessment 

that results in increase of 1% or more in tax levied jurisdiction shall reduce rate so as not to exceed 101% of prior 

year, unless, after advertisement and hearing, it believes it 

necessary to increase rate above rollback. Excludes new 

construction, improvements, and special levies. 

West Virginia 

Counties, Municipalities 1990 

and School Districts 

Revenue rollback is component of full disclosure provision. 

Following annual or triennial appraisal/valuation that 

results in an increase of 1% or more of revenue rate shall be 

reduced so as not to exceed 101% of prior year. Governing 

body may increase rate above rollback rate if it advertises 

and holds public hearing. Excludes new construction and 

improvements. 

56 
OTHER RESEARCH ON TAX 

AND EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS 

Research on tax and expenditure limita- Minimal benefits from attempts to 

tions has included: limit local public expenditures in the 

Studies of the reasons for voter support; 

Descriptions of specific limitations or 

cross-sectional summaries of their 

characteristics and projected effects; 

and 

Studies of impacts on state and local 

finance, including analyses of their 

impact on the size of the public sector, and, to a lesser degree, their distributional impact. 

face of potentially significant costs;22 

An expected change in intergovernmental revenue and expenditure 

structures;23 and 

Low potential for TELs to limit tax 

burdens and state spending.24 

IMPACT ON STATE AND LOCAL FINANCE 

Studies of the actual impact of TELs 

focus on tax burdens, the broader impact on 

single jurisdictions, the impacts on the level of 

government expenditure in multiple jurisdictions, and the effect on the revenue and expenditure structure of the state and local sector. 

WHY VOTERS SUPPORT TAX LIMITATIONS 

Some findings suggest that the electorate 

wanted lower taxes and more efficiency in 

government, but not cutbacks in public services. In essence, voters were attempting to 

Tax Burdens 

This research has explored aggregate burlower the Price Of the existing service 

package.'' Others have found that voters 

den (i-e., are people paying less in taxes after 

the limitation?) and the distribution of the burport TELs according to their self-interestthose whose tax burdens would likely be most 

clearly affected supported the limitations.20 

den (have the changes had an impact on equity 

ofhe tax system?). 

An early investigation of Proposition 13 

found that it offered the largest tax reductions 

to low- and high-income residents. Compared 

to an equal-sized cut in sales, income, or residential property taxes alone, Proposition 13 

structure of state and local government benefits more households with incomes below 

finance, and local fiscal conditions has found: $25,000, although it also dramatically increasTax incidence analyses for selected cities 

in California, New Jersey, and Kansas found a 

INSTITUTIONAL DESCRIPTIONS 

Research on overall Public spending, the 

A projected worsening of fiscal con- es horizontal inequities*25 

ditions for 43 U.S. cities with binding 

hypothetical tax limitations;21 

57 
lower tax burden for California and New Jersey cities, and tax systems in all three states 

moving in the direction of greater progressivity. Tax relief was provided to those with the 

lowest income. There was a movement toward 

income taxes and business property taxes, and 

away from residential property taxes. User fees 

and charges (generally regressive) also are 

receiving increasing attention as revenue 

sowces.26 

Single Jurisdiction Studies 

A second set of studies reviews the 

impact of TELs in specific states. These concentrate on three large states with well-known 

and binding limitations: California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. 

Studies focusing on California found 

early impacts of Proposition 13 to include a 

reduction in property tax rates coupled with 

increases in state intergovernmental aid, user 

fees, and charges.*’ Infusions of state aid 

allowed local governments to avoid service 

reductions. But expectations over the long run 

included further increases in user charges, 

more state assumption of school finance, and 

an altering of relationships among local governments, some of which will be consolidated.28 

Later research investigated the impact of 

TELs in creating uniform service levels 

between jurisdictions and the ramifications of 

reducing service package choice. Tax burdens 

were found to decline while service variation 

appeared to be maintained, suggesting continued choice (although the range may have been 

modified).*9 

California municipalities kept total real 

per capita revenues and expenditures constant 

between 1978 and 1985, and those hit hardest 

by outside constraints (in the form of federal 

and state aid policies) have raised own-source 

revenues the most.30 

New Jersey limits expenditures rather 

than tax collections. A comparison of predicted 

expenditure levels without the limitation to 

actual spending with the limitation found only 

a small negative effect on the level of municipal expenditures.31 School districts have relied 

on state aid to replace losses in local revenue. 

This has had a negative impact on the ability of 

this aid to serve as a fiscal equalizer between 

districts, prompting the conclusion that the 

limitation has had regressive distributional 

effects.32 

Case studies of the effect of Massachusetts’ Proposition 2 1/2 (a limitation on local 

assessments and the property tax rate) on 

selected cities and eight towns found that they 

did not have to make devastating budget cuts, 

although many did face reductions. Property 

revaluation lessened the impact for some 

municipalities, as did a large infusion of state 

aid. Some local governments also instituted 

spending freezes, deferred capital expenditures, and increased non-property tax revenue.33 

Cross-Sectional Studies 

A limited number of studies evaluated 

cross-sectionally the impact of TELs on the 

finances of state and local government. One 

evaluation of the impact of a hypothetical limitation tying appropriation increases to inflation 

and population increases (similar to Proposition 4 in California) found that only Connecticut had lower per capita expenditure than it 

would have had with such a limitation.34 

The same type of analysis is used to evaluate the impact of tying growth in spending to 

per capita income growth. In 35 states, expenditures grew more rapidly than income. Other 

studies suggest that, overall, TELs have made 

very little difference in state spending and fiscal policies.35 

58 
A recent set of studies assessed the overall impact of TELs on the revenue and expenditure structure of the 48 contiguous states 

from 1965 through 1990. There was no effect 

on the absolute size of the public sector, but the 

composition has changed significantly. Shifts 

in structure have included: 

Less reliance on traditional local revenue sources for the state and local 

public sector; 

Less reliance on tax sources for local 

own-source revenue; 

More local reliance on state aid; and 

An increase in the general level of 

state expenditure and revenue responsibility, particularly for education and 

highways. 

Overall, the result appears to be a more 

centralized public sector, possibly less responsive to local preferences, more reliant at the 

local level on nontax sources of revenue, and a 

bit less accommodating to the needs of dependent populations. In addition, these effects 

appear to be increasing over tirne.36 

Much of this research took place relatively early in the states’ experience with the 

effects of the “tax revolt.” These effects have 

likely been altered and magnified over time. 

Questions remain about the effects of TELs on 

the structure of the state and local public sector. Previous studies suggest that TELs result 

in attempts to tap alternative sources of revenue and to look to intergovernmental 

resources. However, the implications of such 

pressures have not been assessed adequately. 

Questions that might be addressed more 

fully include: 

What changes have there been in the 

distribution of revenues away from 

broad-based taxes toward more narrowly defined sources? 

Has there been a shift in responsibility for expenditure functions? For 

example, have local governments in 

states with binding limitations on 

property tax revenues turned to state 

government for increased funding for 

education? 

What have been the overall equity 

and efficiency effects? 

What have been the effects on local 

autonomy? 

Has there been a shift toward singlepurpose jurisdictions and what are the 

implications for governance? 

Increased reliance on user fees and other 

narrow revenue sources may make the state 

and local revenue system more regressive. A 

movement toward state aid and away from 

local funding of public schools may have 

implications for equity (e.g., greater progressivity) and efficiency (e.g., reduced congruence with local preferences). 

59 
James N. Danziger, “California’s Proposition 13 

and the Fiscal Limitations Movement in the United 

States,” Political Studies 28 (1 980): 599-6 12; and 

Philip G. Joyce and Daniel R. Mullins, “The 

Changing Fiscal Structure of the State and Local 

Public Sector: The Impact of Tax and Expenditure 

Limitations,” Public Administration Review 5 1 

(May/June 1991): 240-253. 

2 Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental 

Relations (ACIR), State Limitations on Local Taxes 

and Expenditures (Washington, DC, 1977); and 

James Danziger and Peter Smith Ring, “Fiscal 

Limitations: A Selective Review of Recent 

Research,” Public Administration Review 43 (January/February 1982): 47-55. 

H.E. Brazer, “On Tax Limitations,” in Norman 

Walzer and David Chicoine, eds., Financing State 

and Local Government in the 1980s (Cambridge, 

Massachusetts: Oelgeschlager, Gunn, and Hain, 

1981). 

In a survey conducted annually by the Advisory 

Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, the 

property tax consistently ranks among the worst, or 

least fair, of major federal, state, and local taxes. It 

holds this distinction jointly with the federal 

income tax. During the 1970s, the property tax generally was considered worse than the income tax, 

followed by a period from 1979 to 1988 when the 

income tax held this distinction. The property tax 

was worst again in 1989 and 1991 (see ACIR, 

Changing Public Attitudes on Governments and 

Taxes). 

5 See Steven D. Gold and Martha Fabricius, How 

States Limit City and County Property Taxes and 

Spending (Denver: National Conference of State 

Legislatures, 1989); ACIR, Significant Features of 

Fiscal Federalism, 1992, Table 7; and Joyce and 

Mullins, “The Changing Fiscal Structure of the 

State and Local Public Sector.” 

6 Gold and Fabricius, How States Limit City and 

County Property Taxes and Spending. 

7 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the 

Census, Government Finances: 1990-91 (Washington, DC, 1994), Table 29. 

* Steven D. Gold, “Results of Local Spending and 

Revenue Limitations: A Survey,” Perspectives on 

Local Public Finance and Public Policy 1 (1983): 

ACIR, State Limitations on Local Taxes and 

Expenditures; and Dennis R. Judd, The Politics of 

American Cities: Private Power and Public Policy, 

3rd ed. (Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and 

Company, 1988). 

lo National Property Tax Manual (Vertex Inc., 

1991). 

11 Gold, “Results of Local Spending and Revenue 

Limitations.” 

12 Gold and Fabricius, How States Limit City and 

County Property Taxes and Spending. 

13 Citizens Research Council of Michigan, “Truth 

in Local Property Taxation and Assessment,’’ 

Council Comments 929 (May 1982). 

14 ACIR, State Limitations on Local Taxes and 

Expenditures, 

15 “Proceeds of taxes” include general tax revenues, proceeds from investment of tax revenue, 

revenues from user fees and charges that exceed 

the cost of providing the service, and year-end 

unappropriated fund balances originating from tax 

sources. For local governments, proceeds also 

include state subvention revenue. California Tax 

Foundation, Up to the Limit: Article XIII B Seven 

Years Later (Sacramento, 1987). 

14 California Taxpayer Association, Growth within 

Limits: Reshaping Article XIII B (Sacramento, 

1988). 

109- 147. 

60 
17 Colorado Constitution, Article X, 6 20(3)(4). 

18 ACIR, State Limitations on Local Taxes and 

Expenditures. 

19 Research along these lines includes Helen F. 

Ladd and Julie Boatright Wilson, Proposition 2 

112: Explaining the Vote (Cambridge: Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, 

1981); “Why Voters Support Tax Limitations: Evidence from Massachusetts’ Proposition 2 l /2,” 

National Tax Journal 35 (1982): 121-147; and 

“Who Supports Tax Limitations: Evidence from 

Massachusetts Proposition 2 14” National Tax 

Journal 36 (1983): 256-279; Paul Courant, Edward 

Gramlich and Daniel Rubinfeld, “Why Voters Support Tax Limitations: The Michigan Case,” National Tax Journal 38 (1985): 1-20. 

20 Robert M. Stein, Keith E. Hamm, and Patricia K. 

Freeman, “An Analysis of Support for Tax Limitation Referenda,” Public Choice 40 (1983): 187- 

194. 

21 John E. Peterson, “Tax and Expenditure Limitations: Projecting Their Impacts on Big City 

Finances,” in Kaufman and Rosen, eds., The Tax 

Revolts: The Case of Proposition 13 (New York: 

Harper, 1981). 

22 Ladd, “An Economic Evaluation of State Limitations on Local Taxing and Spending Power,” 

National Tax Journal 3 1 (1 978): 1-1 8. 

23 Perry Shapiro and W. Douglas Morgan, “The 

General Revenue Effects of the California Property 

Tax Limitation Amendment,” National Tax Journal 

24 Dale Bails, “A Critique of the Effectiveness of 

Tax-Expenditure Limitations,” Public Choice 38 

25 Howard Chernick and Andrew Reschovsky, 

“The Distributional Impact of Proposition 13: A 

Microsimulation Approach,” National Tax Journal 

31 (1978): 119-128. 

(1982): 129-138. 

35 (1982): 149-170. 

26 Dennis DeTray et al., Fiscal Restraints and the 

Burden of State and Local Taxes (Santa Monica, 

California: RAND, 1981). 

27 Roger Kemp, “California’s Proposition 13: A 

One-Year Assessment,” State and Local Government Review 14 (January 1982). 

28 Danziger, “California’s Proposition 13 and the 

Fiscal Limitations Movement in the United States.” 

29 Carolyn Sherwood-Call, “Tax Revolt or Tax 

Reform: The Effect of Local Government Limitation Measures in California,” Economic Notes (San 

Francisco: Federal Reserve Bank, 1987). 

30 Gary J. Reid, “How Cities in California Have 

Responded to Fiscal Pressures since Proposition 

13,” Public Budgeting and Finance 8 (Spring 

31 David Merriman, “The Distributional Effects of 

New Jersey’s Tax and Expenditure Limitations,” 

Land Economics 62 (1 986): 3 54-36 1. 

32 Sharon Bernstein Megdal, “Estimating a Public 

School Expenditure Model under Binding Spending Limitations,” Journal of Urban Economics 19 

33 Lawrence E. Susskind and Cynthia Horan, 

“Proposition 2 1/2: The Response to Tax Restrictions in Massachusetts,” in Lawrence E. Susskind, 

ed., Proposition 2 112 (Cambridge: Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology, 1983). 

34 Richard J. Cebula, “Tax-Expenditure Limitation 

in the U.S.-Two Alternative Evaluations,” Economic Notes (1 986): 140- 15 1. 

35 These include Daphne A. Kenyon and Karen 

Benker, “Fiscal Discipline: Lessons from the State 

Experience,” National Tax Journal 37 (1984): 437- 

446; and Marcia Howard, “State Tax and Expenditure Limitations: There Is No Story,” Public 

Budgeting and Finance 9 (1989): 83-90. 

36 Joyce and Mullins, “The Changing Fiscal Structure of the State and Local Public Sector.” 

1988): 20-37. 

(1986): 277-295. 

61 
62 
Appendix 

Legal Citations 

ALABAMA 

Overall 

Specific 

mun 

sd 

co 

C 

C 

Article 1 1, Q 2 17 (Amendment #325 and 373) 

Article 11, Q 215 

Article 11, Q 216 

Article 14, Q 2 

ALASKA 

Specific 

Levy 

S 

S 

Q 29.45090 

Q 29.45.090 

ARIZONA 

Overall 

Levy 

co, mun 

Assessment 

Expenditure 

co, rnun 

sd 

Article 9, Q 18 

Article 9, Q 19 and Q 42-301 

Q 42-201 -02 

Article 9, Q 20 and 8 41-563 

Article 9, Q 21 and Q 41-563(c) 

ARKANSAS 

Specific 

mun 

co 

Levy 

Article 12, Q 4 and Q 26-25-101 

Article 12, Q 4 and Q 26-25-102 

Q 26-26-402 

CALIFORNIA 

Overall 

Assessment 

Expenditure 

co, mun, sd 

C 

C 

C 

Article 13A, Q 1 

Article 13A, Q 2 

Article 13B, Q 1 

COLORADO 

Levy 

co, mun, sd 

Expenditure 

co, mun, sd 

Revenue 

co, mun, sd 

Disclosure 

Article 10, Q 20 and Q 29-1-301 

Article 10, Q 20(7)(b) 

Article 10, Q 20(7)(c)(d),(8)(a) 

Article 10, Q 20(3) and $29-1-301,302 

DELAWARE 

Levy 

co 

Disclosure 

S 

S 

Chapter 80, Title 9, Q 8002 

Chapter 80, Title 9, Q 8002 

63 
FLORIDA 

Specific 

co 

CS 

Article 7, 16 9 and 6 200.07 

mun Article 7, § 9 and 200.08 

sd Article 7, $ 9 and § 236.08 (4) 

Assessment C Article 7, $ 4 

Disclosure S 5 200.065 and $ 200.069 

GEORGIA 

Specific C Article 8, $ 6, P 1 

sd 

Disclosure S $48-5-32.1 

HAWAII 

Disclosure S 0 248-2 

IDAHO 

Overall 

Specific 

S 

S 

§ 63-923 

8 63-903 

$ 50-235 

sd $ 33-802 

Levy S $63-2220 

CO 

mun 

Disclosure S $ 63-2224 to 2226 

ILLINOIS 

Specific S 

co $ 5-1024 

mun $ 8-3-1 

sd $ 17-2 

Levy S $ 35 ILCS 245-1.1 to 1.5 

Disclosure S Truth in Taxation Act 

INDIANA 

Levy S 

co, mun Q 6-1.1-18.5-2 

sd p 6-1.1-19-1.5 

IOWA 

Specific S 

co 

mun 

sd 

Assessment 

Expenditure 

sd 

S 

S 

$ 33 1.423 

$ 384.1 

Q 257.3 

p 441.21 

Chapter 257 

Disclosure S $8 33 1.426,434 

KANSAS 

Specific 

co, mun 

S $9 79-1945 to 1970 

Levy S 0 79-5022,5024,5025,5026,5027,5028,5032 

64 
KENTUCKY 

Specific 

co, mun 

sd 

Levy 

Disclosure 

S 

S 

Q 157 of Constitution 

Q 160.475 

House Bill 44 (1979) 

QQ 132.027 and 160.470 

LOUISIANA 

Specific 

mun 

sd 

Levy 

co Article 6, Q 2803 

Article 6, Q 27 

Article 8, Q 13 

Article 7, Q 23 

MARY LAND 

Assessment 

Disclosure 

S 

S 

Q 8-103 

QQ 6-308 and 2-205 

MASSACHUSETTS 

Specific S 

Levy S 

rnun 

mun 

Chapter 59, Q 2 1 C( 1) 

Chapter 59, Q 21C(4) 

MICHIGAN 

Overall 

co, sd 

Specific 

mun 

Levy 

Disclosure 

S 

C 

S 

Article 9, Q 6 and Q 211.201 

QQ 211.107(a) and 117.3 

Article 9, Q 31 

Q 2 11.24(e) 

MINNESOTA 

Specific 

mun 

Revenue 

co, rnun 

Expenditure 

sd 

Disclosure 

$8 412.251 and426.04 

QQ 275.50 to 275.56 

Q 124.2131 

Q 275.065 

MISSISSIPPI 

Levy 

co, mun 

sd 

S 

S 

S 

Q 27-39-320 

Q 27-39-320,27-39-305,27-39-321 

9 27-39-320,37-57-105,37-57-107 

MISSOURI 

Specific 

Levy 

Disclosure 

C 

CS 

C 

Article 10, 0 ll(b)(c) 

Article 10, 5 22 and Q 137.073 

Article 10, Q 22 

MONTANA 

Specific 

rnun 

sd 

co 

S 

Q 7-6-2501 

Q 7-6-4452 

QQ 20-9-331 and 20-9-353 

65 
Levy 

Disclosure 

S 

S 

Q 15-10-402 

4 15-10-203 

NEBRASKA 

Specific 

mun 

sd 

co 

Levy 

sd 

Expenditure 

Disclosure 

S 

S 

S 

S 

Q 77- 1063 

5 19-1309 

5 79-432 

QQ 17-3437 to 17-3440 

Q 79-3814 

6 17-3440 

NEVADA 

Overall 

Specific 

mun 

sd 

Levy 

Disclosure 

CS 

S 

S 

S 

Article 10, Q 2 and Q 361.453 

Q 266.605 

Q 387.195 

8 354.5981 1 

Q 36 1.4545 

NEW JERSEY 

Levy S Q 40A\34-45.4 

co 

Expenditure S 

mun QQ 40A:4-45.2 and 45.3 

sd Q 18A:7D-28 

NEW MEXICO 

Overall C Article 8, Q 2 

Specific S Q 7-37-7 

Levy S Q 7-37-7.1 

Assessment S Q 7-37-7.1 

NEW YORK 

Specific C Article 8, 8 10 

Assessment C Article 18, 1805 

NORTH CAROLINA 

Specific C 

co Article 7, Q 153A-149 

mun Article 9, Q 160A-209 

NORTH DAKOTA 

Specific S 

co Q 57-15-06 

mun Q 57-15-08 

sd Q 57-15-14 

Levy S 

co, mun Session Laws 1991, Ch. 653 

sd s Q 57-15-14 

OHIO 

Overall 

Levy 

Article 12, Q 2 and @ 5705.02 

Title 57 

66 
OKLAHOMA 

Overall C Article 10, $ 9(a) 

OREGON 

Overall 

Specific 

sd 

Levy 

C 

C 

C 

Article 11, 8 ll(b) 

Article 11, $ ll(b) 

Article 11, $ 11 

PENNSYLVANIA 

Specific 

mun 

sd 

Levy 

co 16 PS§ 1770 

53 PS$3753 1 

24 PS$6-652 

RHODE ISLAND 

Levy S $ 44-5-2 

Disclosure S $ 44-35-5 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

Disclosure S $ 12-43-280 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

Specific S 

co $ 10-12-21 

mun $9 10-12-32 and 33 

sd 5 10-12-30 

TENNESSEE 

Disclosure S Q 67-5-1702 

TEXAS 

Specific 

co, mun 

sd 

Levy 

Disclosure 

C 

S 

S 

Article 8, $ 9 

Article 7, $ 3 

$ 26.04 

$26.06 

UTAH 

Specific 

rnun 

sd 

Disclosure 

co $ 59-2-908 

$ 10-10-57 

$0 59-2-918 and 919 

$ 53A-17a-135 

VIRGINIA 

Disclosure S $ 58.1-3321 

WASHINGTON 

Overall 

Specific 

Levy 

c,s 

S 

S 

Article 7, $ 2 and $ 84.52.043 

$ 84.52.043 

$9 84.55.010 and 84.55.050 

67 
WEST VIRGINIA 

Overall 

Specific 

mun 

sd 

co 

Levy S 

Disclosure S 

S 

S 

5 11-8-6 

5 11 -8-6(b) 

5 ll-8-6(d) 

8 ll-8-6(~) 

5 11-8-6(e)(f) 

5 11-8-6(e)(f) 

WISCONSIN 

Specific 

Revenue 

co 

S 

S 5 66.77, $67.035, 567.045 

$5 121.90, 121.91, 121.92 

WYOMING 

Specific 

mun 

sd 

co Article 15, 5 5 and 0 39-2-402 

Article 15, 5 6 and 5 39-2-402 

8 21-13-102 

68