Tax Burden Shifts

This table shows the estimate tax burden shifts for the 2002-03 reassessment.  Each percentage change represents what might happen to the average taxpayer in each county owning agricultural, residential, commercial, industrial or utility property.  The average residential taxpayer (homeowner) in the average county would see a decrease in his or her tax bill of 12.8%. 

Click here for a PDF version of this table.

 

 

Estimated Tax Payment Changes for the 2002-03 Reassessment
After Tax Restructuring

 

        Agricultural Residential Commercial Industrial Utility
                 
ALL COUNTIES                
Average Taxpayer       -13.2% -12.8% -21.4% -26.3% -28.8%
Average County       -13.4% -16.4% -24.5% -28.1% -28.9%
Median County       -13.3% -15.4% -24.0% -27.5% -29.0%
Maximum County       6.4% 16.3% 2.0% -9.5% -5.2%
Minimum County       -24.4% -41.7% -52.4% -62.1% -53.5%
                 
1 ADAMS   S x -17.5% -15.4% -26.8% -19.0% -39.1%
2 ALLEN   L x -16.5% -15.4% -30.7% -35.8% -36.0%
3 BARTHOLOMEW   R x -11.6% -8.7% -21.5% -26.3% -27.7%
4 BENTON   R x -17.0% -18.9% -24.9% -37.0% -31.6%
5 BLACKFORD   R x -13.2% -17.9% -9.9% -16.2% -19.6%
6 BOONE s S x -18.9% -17.8% -39.4% -30.6% -53.3%
7 BROWN s R x -18.4% -14.7% -37.8% -62.1% -53.5%
8 CARROLL s R x -14.4% -11.7% -26.3% -32.7% -31.5%
9 CASS   R x -11.9% -14.6% -13.5% -18.1% -23.5%
10 CLARK   S   -13.2% -14.5% -24.7% -27.2% -32.6%
11 CLAY   S x -8.4% -16.9% -17.4% -17.3% -32.8%
12 CLINTON s S x -11.0% -15.5% -25.7% -17.9% -35.9%
13 CRAWFORD   R x -3.7% -33.1% -17.0% -24.0% -15.4%
14 DAVIESS s R x -11.3% -15.7% -22.6% -25.1% -23.2%
15 DEARBORN   S   -16.3% -14.7% -28.8% -24.7% -28.8%
16 DECATUR s R x -18.6% -4.0% -29.3% -34.8% -33.3%
17 DEKALB s S x -8.2% -6.6% -36.9% -33.4% -33.0%
18 DELAWARE   U   -15.0% -9.1% -17.5% -30.9% -27.6%
19 DUBOIS   R x -18.0% -12.2% -25.2% -35.1% -31.5%
20 ELKHART   U   -10.3% 0.4% -19.0% -33.5% -29.4%
21 FAYETTE s R x -24.4% -11.4% -17.0% -16.2% -28.7%
22 FLOYD s U x -23.7% -20.0% -6.8% -27.5% -26.1%
23 FOUNTAIN   R x -19.8% -16.1% -23.2% -26.9% -26.1%
24 FRANKLIN   R x -16.9% -20.8% -45.1% -42.5% -35.4%
25 FULTON s R x -9.3% -14.4% -22.1% -31.6% -22.7%
26 GIBSON   R x -4.2% -19.7% -16.2% -30.1% -16.4%
27 GRANT s R x -15.4% -26.3% -12.5% -16.2% -18.7%
28 GREENE   R x -13.9% -18.2% -42.4% -36.6% -29.0%
29 HAMILTON s S x -14.6% -22.3% -38.6% -38.9% -46.8%
30 HANCOCK s S x -14.9% -17.1% -33.3% -36.3% -48.2%
31 HARRISON s S x -10.5% -20.6% -27.0% -24.9% -36.9%
32 HENDRICKS   S x -10.2% -14.4% -52.4% -46.8% -44.9%
33 HENRY s R x -3.9% -18.2% -21.3% -23.9% -22.6%
34 HOWARD s U x -19.3% -18.2% -16.5% -22.9% -26.3%
35 HUNTINGTON s S x -13.6% -21.9% -16.7% -9.5% -31.7%
36 JACKSON   R x -20.0% -8.2% -24.6% -29.0% -30.5%
37 JASPER s R x -22.7% -13.8% -27.8% -39.2% -18.4%
38 JAY s R x -13.8% -25.9% -5.3% -12.8% -18.7%
39 JEFFERSON s R x -16.4% -12.2% -35.5% -31.6% -23.7%
40 JENNINGS s R x -13.8% -26.0% -12.9% -20.4% -22.1%
41 JOHNSON s S x -12.6% -15.3% -35.2% -30.2% -41.5%
42 KNOX   R   -9.1% -14.2% -16.0% -24.2% -16.4%
43 KOSCIUSKO s R x -21.8% -10.1% -32.9% -39.8% -36.8%
44 LAGRANGE s R x -18.2% -7.1% -32.6% -33.1% -40.2%
45 LAKE s L x -8.3% 16.3% -28.5% -21.1% -30.1%
46 LAPORTE   R x -11.3% -8.8% -22.0% -27.7% -21.1%
47 LAWRENCE   R   -3.3% -10.5% -18.0% -21.5% -13.6%
48 MADISON   S   -12.1% -18.2% -20.4% -19.7% -29.0%
49 MARION s L x -21.6% -21.0% -15.5% -27.2% -27.2%
50 MARSHALL s R x -15.8% -10.5% -14.6% -20.7% -23.3%
51 MARTIN s R x -10.0% -41.7% 1.0% -12.5% -8.6%
52 MIAMI s R x -10.6% -33.1% 1.1% -12.4% -12.3%
53 MONROE s U x -21.1% -16.1% -26.4% -40.7% -42.8%
54 MONTGOMERY   R x -12.4% -11.4% -12.3% -24.8% -22.9%
55 MORGAN s S x -20.1% -15.4% -44.2% -42.7% -51.8%
56 NEWTON s R x -10.0% -20.3% -21.0% -23.2% -26.2%
57 NOBLE   R x -12.7% -7.9% -35.3% -30.1% -31.2%
58 OHIO   S   -16.6% -25.6% -31.3%   -5.2%
59 ORANGE   R   -14.1% -13.9% -20.2% -33.1% -27.1%
60 OWEN   R x -11.0% -15.9% -40.6% -39.7% -30.4%
61 PARKE s R x -11.6% -13.6% -29.3% -37.0% -33.1%
62 PERRY s R x -14.3% -26.4% -12.3% -19.8% -16.7%
63 PIKE   R x -7.2% -17.1% -19.3% -28.9% -13.1%
64 PORTER   S x -11.0% -12.3% -37.6% -32.7% -39.1%
65 POSEY s S x -7.8% -37.5% -14.0% -21.1% -33.6%
66 PULASKI s R x -9.8% -17.9% -23.5% -34.2% -23.8%
67 PUTNAM   R x -15.4% -15.0% -21.5% -24.4% -29.9%
68 RANDOLPH s R x -7.8% -34.1% 2.0% -13.0% -12.2%
69 RIPLEY s R x -19.8% -8.2% -36.2% -37.5% -38.2%
70 RUSH s R x -17.4% -9.4% -20.8% -24.4% -26.7%
71 ST JOSEPH   U x -10.6% -28.7% -3.2% -16.9% -20.9%
72 SCOTT s S x -7.7% -28.5% -8.7% -11.7% -23.7%
73 SHELBY s S x -14.8% -18.3% -20.5% -17.0% -40.3%
74 SPENCER   R x -5.1% -12.9% -41.1% -29.1% -29.2%
75 STARKE s R x -12.4% -15.2% -17.2% -26.0% -26.9%
76 STEUBEN   R x -21.4% -13.9% -27.1% -25.5% -31.8%
77 SULLIVAN   R x -5.8% -15.4% -40.3% -31.1% -22.0%
78 SWITZERLAND   R x -20.2% -22.9% -44.0% -40.1% -33.0%
79 TIPPECANOE   U   -18.8% -12.1% -25.2% -39.0% -39.6%
80 TIPTON   S x -12.4% -22.0% -20.3% -22.3% -31.6%
81 UNION   R   -11.1% -14.6% -31.5% -40.0% -25.3%
82 VANDERBURGH s L x -20.4% -5.6% -29.2% -41.9% -37.3%
83 VERMILLION   S x 6.4% -11.7% -43.4% -28.8% -25.3%
84 VIGO   U   -2.0% -9.1% -21.1% -27.8% -21.4%
85 WABASH s R x -13.4% -14.6% -14.9% -25.5% -19.0%
86 WARREN   R x -15.8% -23.2% -27.4% -35.2% -29.8%
87 WARRICK   S x -12.8% -26.7% -35.8% -16.3% -32.6%
88 WASHINGTON s R x -14.0% -20.5% -13.7% -20.6% -21.4%
89 WAYNE   R x -13.1% -13.8% -15.2% -24.9% -18.3%
90 WELLS s S x -6.9% -19.0% -29.4% -17.1% -37.1%
91 WHITE s R x -15.7% -11.7% -27.7% -37.6% -32.6%
92 WHITLEY   S x -11.8% -16.9% -48.5% -44.1% -42.3%

 

                    Key:  s=county in market value study sample; non-sample counties use assessment
                                 multipliers based on county type, R, S, U or L.
                             R=rural; S=suburban; U=small urban; L=large urban.
                             x = county assessor/auditor data used

 

Data comparing property sales and current assessments were available in the counties marked "s", for county in sample. "Multipliers" were calculated from these data showing how much assessments would increase when property was assessed based on market values.  Remaining non-sample counties were estimated based on their urban-suburban-rural classification.  Out-of-sample rural counties were estimated based on results for in-sample rural counties, out-of-sample suburban counties were estimated based on results for in-sample suburban counties, and so forth.  Lake County results are exceptional, and so it was not used for estimates of non-sample large urban counties.  County assessor and auditor data on individual parcels were used to estimate the shares of assessed value by property type in counties labeled "x".  Other county property shares were estimated based on county-wide data available from the Department of Local Government Finance.