What a new Minnesota Miracle could look like

Other states – and even other countries – are now confronting similar pressures and modernizing how local government is funded. Minnesota should look closely at what’s working elsewhere. Below are real-world examples of what a new Minnesota Miracle could look like.

It’s also important to say this plainly: local governments are already cutting, consolidating and finding efficiencies wherever possible. Across Minnesota, cities, counties and school districts have delayed projects, reduced staff, shared services, renegotiated contracts, and modernized operations to hold down costs. Those efforts matter – and they’ve helped – but they are no longer enough to offset the structural pressures built into our current system.

Income-based property tax adjustments (Vermont, Michigan and international models)
One of the most effective tools used elsewhere ties a portion of a homeowner’s property tax bill to their actual ability to pay.

Vermont and Michigan lead the nation. If a resident’s property tax bill exceeds a set share of household income, the state automatically reduces it. This protects seniors and longtime homeowners who are “house rich, income poor.” Today, roughly two-thirds of Vermont residents qualify.

New Zealand and several European countries go even further, incorporating income-based formulas directly into property tax systems.

Minnesota already has a limited circuit breaker, but it has not kept pace with rising costs. Expanding it would directly protect seniors and longtime residents in communities like West St. Paul, South St. Paul, Inver Grove and Mendota Heights.

A stronger state role in funding schools (Colorado, Massachusetts and Canada)
Minnesota faces a familiar challenge: school districts with strong commercial tax bases can spread costs widely, while older communities with limited growth must rely heavily on homeowners.

Other places are addressing this imbalance. Colorado recently increased the state’s share of school funding while reducing reliance on local levies. Massachusetts uses statewide funding targets to ensure comparable support regardless of zip code. In Ontario and several other Canadian provinces, most school operating costs are funded at the provincial level, significantly easing property tax pressure.

Minnesota’s original Miracle shifted much of school funding to the state. It worked then, and updating that approach could work again.

State support for aging infrastructure (New York, Ohio and the United Kingdom)
Older suburbs face disproportionately high costs to repair aging streets, sewer systems and public facilities – costs that fall squarely on local property taxpayers.

New York’s Municipal Infrastructure Program provides targeted matching funds to older communities. Ohio sets aside capital funds specifically for first-ring suburbs. The United Kingdom directs national infrastructure dollars toward areas with aging housing and limited tax bases.

Minnesota could adopt a similar strategy, targeting help to communities like South St. Paul and West St. Paul.

Modernizing state technology (Utah, Indiana and Estonia)
Few things waste public dollars more than outdated government technology. While Minnesota still relies on “green-screen” systems developed decades ago, others have modernized.

Utah and Indiana redesigned benefits systems to reduce duplicate data entry, saving millions while improving service. Estonia has gone further, creating a secure digital portal where residents access nearly all government services efficiently.
Minnesota has piloted small modernization efforts with good results. Scaling them statewide would save money, reduce the possibility of fraud and improve service.

Giving local governments more flexibility (Oregon and Australia)
Some states have recognized that one-size-fits-all mandates drive up costs without improving outcomes.
Oregon allows local governments flexibility in delivering state-mandated services as long as performance standards are met. Australia uses “local service compacts,” letting local governments propose alternative service models that meet state goals more efficiently.

Minnesota’s cities, counties and school districts are already innovating. Giving them more room to do so could reduce costs statewide.

The bottom line
Even with aggressive cost controls and efficiency efforts at the local level, the current property tax system is forcing more of the burden on homeowners every year.

Minnesota has fixed this problem before. The original Minnesota Miracle was bold, bipartisan and transformative. A modern version doesn’t need to replicate the past; it needs to adapt proven ideas to today’s realities.

Property taxes are becoming increasingly inequitable and unsustainable, especially for older communities. A new Minnesota Miracle is not just possible, it’s necessary, and now is the time to do it.

Commissioner Joe Atkins represents South St. Paul, West St. Paul and Inver Grove Heights on the Dakota County Board. He welcomes comments at joe.atkins@co.dakota.mn.us and 651-438-4430.

View past articles!
It’s time for the next Minnesota Miracle (January 2026)

• Facebook
• ShareCopied to clipboard

<<< Back to Home