Page 33 of 40
Table 5
Kauai Property Tax Savings Due to Reductions in Land Tax Rates (FY 2006)
Gross Property Taxes at
1
Savings at
2
Savings in
Land Use Class
Bldg/Land Value FY2005 Rates FY2006 Rates Per Cent (%)
Single Family .348 $20,102,226 $3,452,434 17.2%
Apartment 2.529 12,827,424 5,66,416 4.4
Commercial .695 8,462,430 770,893 9.1
Industrial .725 2,518,115 225,465 9.0
Agricultural .256 13,671,664 1,021,188 7.5
Conservation .099 3,190,965 297,027 9.3
Hotel & Resort 2.837 14,741,964 530,634 3.6
Homestead .714 16,780,598
___0 0____
$89,423,576 $6,864,057 7.6%
Notes: (1) Calculated by multiplying 2006 gross assessed valuations for land and buildings, separately, by their
respective 2005 property tax taxes from Table 3.
(2) Savings are the difference between tax liabilities at FY2006 rates and tax liabilities at FY2005 rates,
both using gross assessed valuations in the calculations.
(3) “Apartment” includes non-owner occupied units in multi-unit residential buildings, condos, and
timeshares.
(4) “Homestead” properties are used as owners’ principal residences.
Source: City and County of Honolulu, Department of Budget & Fiscal Services, Real Property Assessment Division,
at https://www.realpropertyhonolulu.com/
End Notes
i
Quote from Cohen and Coughlin, 2005, p. 359.
ii
Pittsburgh, along with few smaller cities in Pennsylvania, has had a graded property tax system
since 1913 under which land was taxed at twice the rate of improvements until 1979. In 1979
and 1980, the city of Pittsburgh restructured its property tax system so that land in the city was
taxed more than five times the rate on structures. Since the county and the overlying school
district also levied property taxes and they did not participate in the graded property tax system,
the actual rate differential after 1979 resulted in land in the city being taxed at somewhat more