Report and Recommendations on Multi-family Property Assessment in Cook County

Report and Recommendations on Multi-family Property Assessment in Cook County Prepared for The Cook County Board of Commissioners Prepared by Cook County Assessor James M. Houlihan January 2006

Report and Recommendations: Multifamily Property Assessment Prepared for the Cook County Board of Commissioners by Cook County Assessor James M. Houlihan Executive Summary In 2002, Assessor James M. Houlihan, with County Board approval, took initial steps toward alleviating the property tax burden on apartment owners and renters by implementing a phased-in reduction in the assessment level of Class 3 multifamily (apartment) properties from 33% to 26%. That 22% overall reduction in assessment level was a good first step in narrowing the tax burden gap between apartments and residential property. Still, in Cook County, 37% of all renters are defined as rent burdened, i.e., a household spending more than 30% of its income on rent and utilities. As noted in The Preservation Compact: A Rental Housing Strategy for Cook County 1, an analysis of recently collected data on local inventory and spatial patterns of rental housing, it is precisely the low-moderate income renter group which pays the largest portion of income for housing. Therefore, the next step is to implement a further phased-in assessment level reduction to Class 3 multifamily apartments from a 26% level to a 20% level. The cost tradeoff between apartment taxes being substantially reduced and the marginal increase to other classes is negligible. According to Assessor s Office projections, over the three year period of the phase-in, the typical apartment property in the South suburb of Calumet will realize a 21% reduction in taxes by 2008. The typical apartment in Evanston over the same three year period will see their taxes reduced by 20%. In the City of Chicago, the tax reduction for the typical apartment is 22%. Countywide, the equalized assessed value (EAV) shift to other classes of property is approximately 2%. The actual shift in taxes varies depending on the mix of properties within a taxing district, but in no district is the shift greater than 3.5%. Since there is a nominal cost to the other property types with the benefit of reduced taxes on apartment properties, an assessment level reduction is a sound policy decision. Recommendation The diminishing supply of and increasing demand for affordable apartment housing warrants a policy to reduce the assessment level on those properties to encourage retention, preservation and new construction. The Assessor is committed to creating public policy that addresses affordable housing issues. Projections show there is a relatively minimal impact on the tax base when a 1 Metro Chicago Information Center (MCIC) materials for the MacArthur Foundation/Urban Land Institute, April, 2005. 2

reduction is implemented. The changes show a balance: they do enough to allow substantial relief to apartment properties that severely need assistance, yet not too much so as to irresponsibly impact on the healthy tax base of Cook County. The Assessor recommends to the Cook County Board of Commissioners an assessment level reduction on Class 3 multi-family apartments from a 26% level to a 24% level in tax year 2006, from a 24% level to a 22% level in tax year 2007, and from a 22% level to a 20% level in tax year 2008. 3

Background The purpose of this report is threefold: first, to frame the issue of whether the current real estate property classification system adversely affects a certain type of property in Cook County; second, to make specific recommendations to the Cook County Board of Commissioners proposing the adoption of property classification changes; and third, to describe the impact that the proposed changes will have on the economy of the tax base. In 2002, Assessor James M. Houlihan, with County Board approval, took initial steps toward alleviating the property tax burden on apartment owners and renters by implementing a phased-in reduction in the assessment level of Class 3 multifamily (apartment) properties from 33% to 26%. That 22% overall reduction in assessment level was a good first step in narrowing the tax burden gap between apartments and residential property. The Issue Still, in Cook County, 37% of all renters are defined as rent burdened, i.e., a household spending more than 30% of its income on rent and utilities. As noted in The Preservation Compact: A Rental Housing Strategy for Cook County 2, an analysis of recently collected data on local inventory and spatial patterns of rental housing, it is precisely the low-moderate income renter group which pays the largest portion of income for housing. The property tax is a major consideration in a developer s cost-benefit analysis of the viability of creating or rehabilitating apartment housing. As the supply of these units diminishes in Cook County, the high 26% level of assessment, in conjunction with other real estate market factors including low interest rates for condominium development and lower rates of return on apartments, encourages condominium conversion and discourages the development of apartment buildings. In addition, conversions of warehouses and other industrial property, as well as commercial office buildings, are almost exclusively to condominiums, not apartment rental housing. For example, from 2000 to 2003, the number of condominiums increased from 294,423 to 333,299, or 13%. In comparison, the number of apartments decreased by 12% from 19,180 to 16,904. It is important to design policies now that address current challenges to the development, rehabilitation and long-term preservation of apartment housing. Those challenges put pressure on the viability and affordability of rental housing stock. 2 Metro Chicago Information Center (MCIC) materials for the MacArthur Foundation/Urban Land Institute, April, 2005. 4

Reasons for Further Reducing the Apartment Assessment Level An assessment level reduction lowers the tax burden on multi-family apartments. It also narrows the tax burden gap between apartments and residential property. New construction of apartment buildings has declined since the mid-1990 s. An analysis of apartments shows a negative inverse relationship in number between apartment buildings and condominiums. o From 1994-2003 there was a 27% decrease in the number of apartment buildings as compared to a 52% increase in the number of condominium parcels (see below, Graphs 1 & 2). 25,000 20,000 Graph 1 Class 3 Parcels 1994-2003 15,000 10,000 5,000 - '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 Graph 2 Class 2-Condos vs. Class 3 Parcel Growth 350,000 300,000 Parcels 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000-1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Class 2-Condos Class 3 There is a jobs-to-housing mismatch in some areas of the County. Jobs are being created at a higher rate in the suburbs, but corresponding affordable housing is not available to a pool of low-moderate income workers. 5

Business owners and municipal leaders struggle with the shortage of the local labor force and traffic problems resulting from the spatial mismatch. According to the The Preservation Compact: A Rental Housing Strategy for Cook County, young and poor working individuals ranging in age from 25-44 are the most rent burdened accounting for about 139,000 households. Many of them work as teachers, nurses and police officers. With senior citizens, aging baby boomers (born 1946-1964), and immigrants becoming the fastest growing segments of the population, a need exists throughout Cook County for affordable rental housing. In Cook County, 19% of renters are severely rent-burdened spending more than 50% of their income on housing costs which is 66.7% more than the 30% maximum standard. In the City of Chicago, the most highly-burdened renters reside in East Garfield Park, Woodlawn, Grand Boulevard and the Near North Side. This problem, however, extends throughout Cook County in Evanston, Worth, Waukegan, Wheeling, Elk Grove and Schaumburg (Ibid.). Recently, Assessor Houlihan created an Office of Special Assessment Programs. That office is in the preliminary stages of developing and administering a new program that will take the various conditions and restrictions applicable to both rental and for-sale affordable housing stock into consideration during the assessment process. Municipalities and affordable housing programs within Cook County are invited to submit their projects to the Assessor s Office for consideration. In addition to giving consideration to various types of affordable housing properties, rapidly rising property values and the pressures of condominium conversions make now the time to take another step toward easing the tax burden on apartment properties. Although the apartment assessment level was lowered from 33% to 26%, the 26% assessment level is still 38% higher than the 16% assessment level for Class 2 residential property. An additional phase-in of gradual assessment level reductions from 26% to 24% in 2006, from 24% to 22% in 2007, and from 22% to 20% in 2008 would result in a 23% decrease in assessment level further lessening the tax burden on apartments. In order to do that, further changes in the Cook County Real Property Assessment Classification Ordinance are required. To that end, the Assessor submits this report and sets-out his specific proposal to the Cook County Board of Commissioners. 6

Projected Impact Countywide, the projected impact of an apartment assessment level reduction on residential and commercial property taxes is minimal while, at the same time, it provides a significant benefit in reducing taxes on apartment properties. In each of the three triennial districts, the South Suburbs, the City of Chicago and the North Suburbs, projections show that although rapid growth of residential assessed values is tempered by the 7% cap, it continues to outpace commercial and apartment property value growth. Over the reduction phase-in period, the apartment portion of the total tax base continues to shrink or remains stable. The apartment reduction does not cause a significant shift to commercial property. At the same time, with minimal impact, the benefit of a 23% decrease in the apartment assessment level (from 26% to 20%) will alleviate the tax burden on apartments. In the figures below, one can see the affect of reassessment and the phased-in multi-family reduction on the share or portion (percent) of the total EAV represented by apartments, residential and commercial property for each of the triennial districts: South, City and North. The corresponding graphs show the share of EAV for each property type for each year with and without the phased-in multi-family reduction. South Triennial District Figures 1 and 2 below, illustrate the South Triennial District apartment, residential and commercial property portions (%) of EAV, beginning with the year prior to the 2005 South Triennial reassessment through 2008 the years during which the multi-family phased-in reductions are implemented. Figure 2 graphs each of those years, with the reduction and without the reduction respectively. As Figure 2 illustrates, the portion of total EAV for both residential and commercial property fluctuates slightly with the phased-in reductions. For example, in 2006, with the first year of the phased-in reduction, the residential share of total EAV increases slightly by 0.3% while the commercial portion remains stable at 23.7%. At the same time, with the reduction, apartments benefit by decreasing 10% in share of total EAV. 7

Figure 1 Revised 1.26.06 South Triennial District % of EAV 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Reduction N/A N/A with w/o with w/o with w/o Apartments 3.0 3.3 2.9 3.2 2.7 3.1 2.5 3.2 Residential 59.8 58.8 60.1 59.9 60.8 61.0 60.6 60.2 Commercial 23.3 24.3 23.7 23.7 23.4 23.3 24.0 23.8 Figure 2 % of EAV 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 South Triennial District % of Equalized Assessed Value (EAV) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year Apartments Residential Commercial By the 2008 reassessment, the apartment share of total EAV is reduced by 33% with the reduction as compared to no reduction. The residential and commercial property shares with the reduction, as compared to no reduction, both remain relatively stable increasing by less than 1%. City Triennial District During the 2006 reassessment, the first year of the phased-in assessment level reduction - from 26% to 24% - is applied. As compared to no reduction, the apartment share of total EAV with the reduction decreases by 7.5%. In comparison to no reduction, apartment taxes are lowered by $22.3 million from $313.1 million to $290.8 million. During the 2006 reassessment, with a reduction, as compared to without a reduction, the commercial share of total EAV increases by 0.8% - from 39.2% to 39.5%. There is a 0.6% increase in commercial taxes with the reduction. The same comparison of residential property with and without a reduction shows an increase of 0.6% both in the residential share of total EAV and in residential taxes. 8

Figure 3 City Triennial District % of EAV Revised 1.26.06 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Reduction N/A with w/o with w/o with w/o with w/o Apartments 7.7 7.4 8.0 6.8 7.9 6.2 7.9 6.4 8.1 Residential 45.9 46.7 46.4 47.4 46.9 48.1 47.2 48.8 47.9 Commercial 39.8 39.5 39.2 39.4 38.9 39.4 38.6 38.6 37.9 Figure 4 % of EAV 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 City Triennial District % of Equalized Assessed Value (EAV) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Year Apartments Residential Commercial By the 2009 reassessment, the apartment assessment level reduction will have been fully implemented. At this time, with the reduction, the apartment share of total EAV shrinks to 6.4% from 8.1% (without any reduction). Taxes on apartments are reduced by $74.0 million, or 27.5% with the reduction. As for residential property with the reduction, the share of total EAV it represents increases from the share without the reduction by 1.8% - from 47.9% to 48.8% - and corresponding residential taxes increase by 1.9%. Commercial property also experiences a 1.8% increase in its share of total EAV and a 1.9% increase in taxes. North Triennial District In the 2007 reassessment, the second-year of the phased-in apartment assessment level reduction - from 24% to 22% - is applied. With the reduction, the share of the north EAV that apartments represent decreases by 15.6% from 3.2% to 2.7%. With the reduction, apartment taxes are reduced by 13%. The residential share of EAV with the reduction, as compared to the share without a reduction increases by 0.5% representing a 0.5% increase in residential taxes. The commercial portion of EAV with a reduction increases by 0.4% and commercial taxes increase by 0.5%. 9

Figure 5 North Triennial District % of EAV Revised 1.26.06 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Reduction with w/o with w/o with w/o with w/o with w/o Apartments 3.0 3.2 2.7 3.2 2.4 3.1 2.4 3.1 2.3 3.0 Residential 58.0 58.0 58.3 58.0 58.9 58.5 60.0 59.6 60.3 60.0 Commercial 25.8 25.7 26.0 25.9 24.0 25.6 25.1 24.9 25.1 24.9 Figure 6 North Trie nnial District % of Equalized Assessed Value (EAV) % of EAV 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 Apartments Residential Commercial 0.0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year In the 2010 reassessment, with a reduction as compared to without a reduction, the apartment share of taxable EAV shrinks by 23% and corresponding apartment taxes are reduced by 20%. During the same time, that same comparison of the residential share of EAV increases by 0.7% and residential taxes increase by 0.6%. As for commercial property, that comparison shows that the commercial share of EAV increases by 0.8% and taxes increase by 0.8%. Projected Impact on Effective Tax Rate An effective tax rate is the relationship between the taxes and the market value of a property, expressed as a percentage. In this report, effective tax rate is calculated by dividing taxes by market value. As it relates to this proposal, economic theory asserts that when the cost of operations goes down - as in lowered taxes - the market is more likely to spur new development and assist in the preservation and retention of existing apartment properties. Since investment decisions are based on the development and future of the income stream, the effective tax rate savings from the assessment level reduction should correlate to a positive amount of spurred development and retention. Landlords may pass on the property tax burden to tenants only to the extent that market conditions permits them to do so. Therefore, an increase in property taxes is a deterrent to additional development, rehabilitation and 10

retention. However, there is no guarantee that a reduction in property taxes will be passed on to the tenant; market conditions will again be the determining factor. As a result of reassessment combined with a reduced apartment assessment level, effective tax rates are lowered, driving down the tax load and increasing the return-on-investment. The minimal loss in EAV from an apartment reduction will only slightly - if at all increase actual tax rates. The overall effect may spur development, rehabilitation and preservation of apartments. With minimal impact on residential and commercial property taxes, the overall apartment reduction shows a benefit in reducing taxes on apartments, even in suburbs with a high percentage of apartment properties. For example, in the South suburb of Calumet Park (see Tables 1a-b) a typical apartment property decreases in taxes from $15,185 with a tax rate of 11.20% in 2005 to taxes of $12,826 with a tax rate of 10.46% in 2008. During that time, effective tax rates for that property are reduced from 7.63% to 5.86%. In the North suburb of Evanston, a typical apartment property (see Table 7a-b) decreases from $13,684 in taxes, with a tax rate of 7.57% in 2005, to $11,104 in taxes with a tax rate of 6.95% in 2008. During the same time, effective tax rates for that same property are reduced from 5.16% to 3.89%. In the City of Chicago, a typical apartment property (see Table 3a-b) decreases from taxes of $2,654 with a tax rate of 6.17% in 2005, to taxes of $2,285 with a tax rate of 5.50% in 2008. During that same period of time, effective tax rates for that property are reduced from 4.20% to 3.08%. The following tables (1ab-8ab) illustrate how effective tax rates for various types of typical properties are impacted by lowered apartment assessment levels, even in townships with high percentages of apartments, for example: Calumet Twp - 9%, Evanston Twp - 9.2%, Elk Grove Twp - 6.6% and Oak Park Twp - 10%; and the City of Chicago with apartments comprising 1.6% of total properties. 11

Table 1a - Multi-Family Apartment, Calumet Park With Reduction to 20% Revised 1.26.06 2005 2008 Year Reassessment 2006 2007 Reassessment Assessment Level 26% 24% 22% 20% Assessed Value 51,746 47,762 43,798 43,793 EAV 135,576 125,136 118,255 122,620 Tax Rate 11.20 11.31 11.20 10.46 Taxes 15,185 14,153 13,245 12,826 Effective Tax Rate 7.63 7.11 6.65 5.86 Table 1b - Without 20% Reduction 2005 2008 Year Reassessment 2006 2007 Reassessment Assessment Level 26% 26% 26% 26% Assessed Value 51,746 51,746 51,746 56,921 EAV 135,576 135,576 139,714 159,379 Tax Rate 11.20 11.20 10.99 10.15 Taxes 15,185 15,185 15,355 16,177 Effective Tax Rate 7.63 7.63 7.72 7.39 Table 2a Multi-Family Apartment, Oak Park With Reduction to 20% Year 2005 Reassessment 2006 2007 2008 Reassessment Assessment Level 26% 24% 22% 20% Assessed Value 49,226 49,226 49,226 50,457 EAV 128,972 128,972 132,910 141,280 Tax Rate 8.94 8.82 8.62 8.07 Taxes 11,530 11,375 11,457 11,401 Effective Tax Rate 6.10 5.55 5.12 4.52 Table 2b - Without 20% Reduction 2005 2008 Year Reassessment 2006 2007 Reassessment Assessment Level 26% 26% 26% 26% Assessed Value 49,226 49,226 49,226 50,457 EAV 128,972 128,972 132,910 141,280 Tax Rate 8.94 8.76 8.51 7.75 Taxes 11,530 11,298 11,311 10,949 Effective Tax Rate 6.10 5.97 5.97 5.64 12

Table 3a - Multi-Family Apartment, South Chicago With Reduction to 20% Revised 1.26.06 Year 2005 2006 Reassessment 2007 2008 Assessment Level 26% 24% 22% 20% Assessed Value 16,419 17,801 16,323 14,838 EAV 43,018 46,639 44,072 41,546 Tax Rate 6.17 5.62 5.57 5.50 Taxes 2,654 2,621 2,455 2,285 Effective Tax Rate 4.20 3.53 3.31 3.08 Table 3b - Without 20% Reduction Year 2005 2006 Reassessment 2007 2008 Assessment Level 26% 26% 26% 26% Assessed Value 16,419 19,286 19,286 19,286 EAV 43,018 50,529 52,072 54,001 Tax Rate 6.17 5.58 5.51 5.40 Taxes 2,654 2,820 2,869 2,916 Effective Tax Rate 4.20 3.80 3.87 3.93 Table 4a - Commercial Property, Chicago With Reduction to 20% Year 2005 2006 Reassessment 2007 2008 Assessment Level 38% 38% 38% 38% Assessed Value 112,643 125,676 125,676 125,676 EAV 295,125 329,271 339,325 351,893 Tax Rate 6.17 5.62 5.57 5.50 Taxes 18,209 18,505 18,900 19,354 Effective Tax Rate 6.14 5.60 5.71 5.85 Table 4b - Without 20% Reduction Year 2005 2006 Reassessment 2007 2008 Assessment Level 38% 38% 38% 38% Assessed Value 112,643 125,676 125,676 125,676 EAV 295,125 329,271 339,325 351,893 Tax Rate 6.17 5.58 5.51 5.40 Taxes 18,209 18,373 18,697 19,002 Effective Tax Rate 6.14 5.55 5.65 5.74 13

Table 5a - Industrial Property, Chicago With Reduction to 20% Revised 1.26.06 Year 2005 2006 Reassessment 2007 2008 Assessment Level 36% 36% 36% 36% Assessed Value 1,091,663 1,217,968 1,217,968 1,217,968 EAV 2,860,157 3,191,076 3,288,514 3,410,310 Tax Rate 6.17 5.62 5.57 5.50 Taxes 176,472 179,338 183,170 187,567 Effective Tax Rate 5.82 5.30 5.41 5.54 Table 5b - Without 20% Reduction Year 2005 2006 Reassessment 2007 2008 Assessment Level 36% 36% 36% 36% Assessed Value 1,091,663 1,217,968 1,217,968 1,217,968 EAV 2,860,157 3,191,076 3,288,514 3,410,310 Tax Rate 6.17 5.58 5.51 5.40 Taxes 176,472 178,062 181,197 184,157 Effective Tax Rate 5.82 5.26 5.35 5.44 Table 6a Apartment (six units or less), Chicago With Reduction to 20% Year 2005 2006 Reassessment 2007 2008 Assessment Level 16% 16% 16% 16% Assessed Value 52,061 61,526 61,526 61,526 EAV Cap 122,080 141,197 151,081 161,657 Tax Rate 6.17 5.62 5.57 5.50 Taxes 7,532 7,935 8,415 8,891 Effective Tax Rate 2.31 2.06 2.18 2.31 Table 6b - Without 20% Reduction Year 2005 2006 Reassessment 2007 2008 Assessment Level 16% 16% 16% 16% Assessed Value 52,061 61,526 61,526 61,526 EAV 122,080 141,197 151,081 161,657 Tax Rate 6.17 5.58 5.51 5.40 Taxes 7,532 7,879 8,325 8,729 Effective Tax Rate 2.31 2.04 2.16 2.27 14

Table 7a - Multi-Family Apartment, Evanston With Reduction to 20% Revised 1.26.06 Year 2005 2006 2007 Reassessment 2008 Assessment Level 26% 24% 22% 20% Assessed Value 68,993 63,681 62,775 57,062 EAV 180,762 166,844 169,493 159,774 Tax Rate 7.57 7.58 7.08 6.95 Taxes 13,684 12,647 12,000 11,104 Effective Tax Rate 5.16 4.77 4.21 3.89 Table 7b Without 20% Reduction Year 2005 2006 2007 Reassessment 2008 Assessment Level 26% 26% 26% 26% Assessed Value 68,993 68,993 74,167 74,167 EAV 180,762 180,762 200,251 207,668 Tax Rate 7.57 7.52 6.88 6.70 Taxes 13,684 13,593 13,777 13,914 Effective Tax Rate 5.16 5.12 4.83 4.88 Table 8a - Multi-Family Apartment, Rolling Meadows With Reduction to 20% Year 2005 2006 2007 Reassessment 2008 Assessment Level 26% 24% 22% 20% Assessed Value 778,949 718,970 708,743 644,247 EAV 2,040,846 1,883,701 1,913,606 1,803,892 Tax Rate 6.85 6.97 6.63 6.59 Taxes 139,798 131,294 126,872 118,876 Effective Tax Rate 4.67 4.38 3.94 3.69 Table 8b - Without 20% Reduction Year 2005 2006 2007 Reassessment 2008 Assessment Level 26% 26% 26% 26% Assessed Value 778,949 778,949 837,370 837,370 EAV 2,040,846 2,040,846 2,260,899 2,344,636 Tax Rate 6.85 6.87 6.31 6.17 Taxes 139,798 140,206 142,663 144,664 Effective Tax Rate 4.67 4.68 4.43 4.49 15

Recommendation The diminishing supply of and increasing demand for affordable apartment housing warrants a policy to reduce the assessment level on those properties to encourage retention, preservation and new construction. The Assessor is committed to creating public policy that addresses affordable housing issues. Projections show there is a relatively minimal impact on the tax base when a reduction is implemented. The changes show a balance: they do enough to allow substantial relief to apartment properties that severely need assistance, yet not too much so as to irresponsibly impact on the healthy tax base of the County. The Assessor recommends to the Cook County Board of Commissioners an assessment level reduction on Class 3 multi-family apartments from a 26% level to a 24% level in tax year 2006, from a 24% level to a 22% level in tax year 2007, and from a 22% level to a 20% level in tax year 2008. 16

Appendix Methodology The Assessor s Office conducted an impact study to determine the effect of phasing-in, over three years, reductions to the Class 3 multi-family property assessment level from 26% to 20%. That study is based on the following methodology and assumptions: In 2004, projections are made using 2004 Board final assessed values for the North triennial reassessment district. To calculate equalized assessed value (EAV), the actual 2004 multiplier (2.5757) is used; for the following years, estimated multipliers reflecting historical trends are applied to the assessed value (AV) to derive the EAV for each projection year (See Table 1). In 2005 and 2006, projections for the South and the City triennial reassessment districts were based on the increases of their previous reassessments. In 2006, a Class 3 assessment level reduction from 26% to 24% is applied. In 2008, the final assessment level reduction, from 22% to 20%, is applied. In that same year, and in the following reassessment years, reassessment increases are reduced to one-half assuming that the overall real estate market levels-off to historical levels of appreciation (see Table 2). Finally, in order to project the overall impact of the reductions, an annual 2.5% levy increase is applied to account for yearly spending increases levied against the property tax by taxing districts. In addition, the homeowner s exemption with the 7% cap, and the senior and senior freeze exemptions are applied to Class 2 residential property, at the EAV level, to project the impact on and shift in taxable EAV. Table 1 Historical Multipliers Year Multiplier 2003 2.4598 2004 2.5757 2005 2.62 2006 2.62 2007 2.7 2008 2.8 2009 2.8 2010 2.9 2011 3.0 17

Table 2 Historical Assessed Value Increases Revised 1.26.06 Year Area Assessor Overall AV % Increase 1988 City 12.3 Suburbs 2.2 1989 City 1.3 Suburbs 15.5 1990 City 2.4 Suburbs 8.9 1991 City 17.7 Suburbs 1.4 1992 City 1.0 Suburbs 9.2 1993 City 0.8 Suburbs 4.7 1994 City 8.1 Suburbs 0.9 1995 City 0.4 Suburbs 6.9 1996 City 0.6 Suburbs 4.7 1997 City 10.3 Suburbs 1.1 1998 City 1.6 Suburbs 5.5 1999 City 1.7 Suburbs 3.9 2000 City 21.1 Suburbs 1.0 2001 City 2.1 Suburbs 11.5 2002 City 2.5 Suburbs 7.6 2003 City 32.5 Suburbs 1.3 18