Recent Implementation Studies (2007-2008)

Titusville, Crawford County,Pennsylvania January 2007

CSE was asked to study any changes in Titusville's LVT outcomes since a 1990 implementation. We were also asked to look at the accuracy of assessments. We found that there were slightly fewer vacant lots since 1990, but that assessments were outdated and that non-residential land values in particular were inaccurate. Outcome: LVT was working as a tax relief measure for homeowners, but the valuation data needs updating. The county assessment roll has not been made available after repeated requests from both CSE and the City council of Titusville. This recalcitrance is hard to explain, except in a political context, as power rests outside the city and the larger boroughs of the county. CSE is not prepared to stop study of this issue.

Lancaster,Lancaster County,Pennsylvania 2007

Asked by the city to determine if LVT was a candidate for implementation, CSE had to recommend against a traditional LVT shift due to wildly varying land and building assessments, over-assessment of poor neighborhoods relationally to richer suburban townships, and problematic land values for newer "big box" commercial development. Outcome: LVT is not a good choice for the city at this time. The valuation data needs more study, preferably through mapping. The county's assessments must be challenged on ground of uniformity, equity and accuracy.

New Haven, Connecticut March 2008

LVT Study done at the request of Mayor John DiStefano. Outcome: Generally positive for implementation. As in most New England assessments there are no established land values for residential condominiums. CSE allocated a percentage of total condo value to land value (allocation being common appraisal practice), so that non-condoparcles would be treated equitably.

LVT in Sharon, Pennsylvania 2007

The impact of land value tax in Sharon, Pa.