of such training schools. In several cases-including California, Colorado, and Missouri--attendance at such training sessions is mandatory. The size of the annual State contribution to these training programs also varies a great deal from State to State. The highest figures noted were in $158,000 in California, $40,000 in Minnesota, $22,000 in Pennsylvania, $21,000 in Michigan, and $20,000 in Maine. Most of the figures cited were far lower, however, falling below $10,000 per year. (Note: Only 13 States provided information on the size of such payments by the State).

(d) In summary, there does not appear to have been much movement by the States in requiring or encouraging a greater degree of professionalization among local assessors and appraisers. While a majority of States do make some contribution toward the training of assessors, in most cases this training is not mandatory. Assessors are still elected in at least half the States, in spite of the ACIR's most explicit recommendation on this point. And in at least half the States, there are no specific professional qualifications required of persons holding the position of assessor.

In its report, the ACIR noted that one of the major obstacles to a sound system of assessment at the local level was the recruitment and retention of well-qualified persons to serve as assessors and appraisers. In spite of increased State aid to local assessors, it is clear that this is still a problem, one to which several States referred specifically in outlining their major difficulties in property tax administration. Governor Holshouser of North Carolina defined the problem quite succinctly in noting that, "From the standpoint of trained personnel, almost none of our county tax offices are adequate to carry out the duties assigned them by the statute."

C. LOCAL APPEALS-IMPARTIALITY AND QUALITY

Question No. 4. Are the local officials who judge initial appeals from property tax assessments elected or appointed? Do they derive their authority to hear such appeals from the fact of holding other office? If so, what is the office (for example, county commissioner), and what is their other involvement in assessment administration? In its 1963 report, the ACIR recommended that local assessment review agencies be professionally staffed and that they serve an appellate function only. (Recommendation No. 28) The report found that in far too many cases these agencies operated on a part-time basis, their membership comprised of persons elected to other offices which are their principal responsibility, and that too often the agencies were performing both supervisory and quasi-judicial functions.

(a) With the exception of Hawaii, all States (plus the District of Columbia) responding to question 4 do have assessment review agencies at the local level. In 21 of these States, members of the review agency are elected, and in all but two the elected members serve on the review agency by virtue of holding an elected office, most commonly that of county commissioner or school board member. Only Arizona and California, of these States, have local review boards elected specifically for that purpose.

92-420-73- -2

In another 17 States, members of the local review agency are appointed.

In the remaining 12 States, members of the local review agency may be elected or appointed, depending upon the unit of government. Under those circumstances, where the board members are elected, in almost all cases the members serve as persons elected to other offices.

(b) In at least 15 States, members of local assessment review agencies have additional responsibilities for different parts of the assessment process, many of which appear to conflict with the appellate function. In several of these States, including Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Oklahoma, the review agency is at least partially responsible for the assessments which it may be later called upon to review. In several other States, the agency is responsible for the overall supervision of assessments in the county.

(c) In recommending certain changes in the review process at the local level, the ACIR noted that a simple and direct means of taxpayer relief, embodied in a professional appellate body, was an essential ingredient of a fair and credible system of property tax assessment. Yet, in a majority of States, either some or all members of the local review agencies continue to serve in this capacity by virtue of their holding an elected office which is their principal responsibility. Moreover, there does not appear to be any shifting away from this pattern as long as most States continue to rely on local units of government for the primary assessment function.

D. STATE REVIEW-INDEPENDENT APPEAL AGENCIES

Question No. 5. How and by whom are the members of the Statelevel tax assessment review agency chosen? What is their term of office? Does their agency have responsibility for assessing intercounty property, and, if so, what property (for example, utility, railroad, et cetera)? Do they also supervise local assessment standards and administration?

(a)

ACIR RECOMMENDATION NO. 28

The review machinery should have a two-level organization, with both the local and State agencies serving only an appellate function and being professionally well staffed for that purpose; the State agency-either an administrative board or a tax court should be separate from any State agency for property tax administration, should be an appellate body to hear appeals from decisions of local review agencies and from central assessments by the State supervisory agency *** Of the 49 States responding to this question (not applicable to the District of Columbia), 12 have no separate agency at the State level to perform solely the function of assessment review. In these States, the review function is carried out in most cases by another agency of government, such as a State department of revenue or a State board of equalization. In 30 States, the review agency at the State level consists of a board which is appointed in most cases by the Governor, but in some cases by the State tax commissioner or the State supreme court.

In five States, membership on the review board is defined by statute to include certain elected officials. In California, members of the review agency are elected; while in Hawaii, membership is a State civil service position.

The second part of question 5 was applicable to only those States which do have an assesment review agency at the State level. Of the 38 States responding to the followup questions, only 10 noted that their assessment review agency exercises no assessment or supervisory function in addition to the appellate function: Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, New Jersey, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

In 25 of these States, the review agency is responsible for the assessment of intercounty property, which generally includes public utilities, pipelines, railroads, and carlines; and in several cases, telephone and telegraph service.

And finally, 20 States reported that their State assessment review agency does supervise local assessment standards and administration, though in several cases this responsibility is primarily advisory.

(b) The 1963 ACIR report noted that "the great majority of State review agencies are given an incompatible dual role, one of administration and supervision, and the other of reviewing the performance for which they are responsible."

(c) In conclusion, while a clear majority of States do have a separate agency at the State level for assessment review, at least half the States continue to assign dual roles to these agencies, roles which the ACIR found to be highly incompatible, not only with each other but also with the goal of an objective and effective review process.

E. MEASURING ASSESSMENT QUALITY

Question No. 6. What agency or agencies in your State conducts assessment-sales ratio studies? How often are they conducted? How often are they published and to whom are they distributed? What kinds of property are included in the ratio studies?

ACIR RECOMMENDATION NO. 25

The State supervisory agency should be required to conduct, annually, comprehensive assessment ratio studies, ***. The agency should be required to publish the findings of each study, both as to the quality and average level of assessment, in clear, readily understandable form.

ACIR RECOMMENDATION NO. 29

The State supervisory agency should be required * * * to make and publish the findings of annual assessment ratio studies which, in addition to serving the purposes of supervision and equalization, will inform the taxpaper of the average level of assessment in his district.

(a) Of the 49 States and the District of Columbia, 33 conduct assessment ratio studies either annually or on a continuing basis. (NOTE.-In California, studies are conducted by the counties.) An additional six States conduct such studies on a biennial basis.

In the remaining States, three are in the process of conducting the first such study (or have completed the first only recently), five conduct such studies on no regular basis, and one is in the process of switching from an irregular to a continuing basis. In Oklahoma, assessment-sales ratio studies were conducted annually prior to 1970. Since that time, the studies have been suspended due to a defect in a 1970 law revising the basis for the studies.

(b) Of the 39 States (including the District) which presently conduct assessment-sales ratio studies on some regular basis, six do not publish the results: Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.

(c) With regard to the distribution of these studies, in only two States Hawaii and to a lesser degree South Dakota-are the studies distributed explicitly to the general public, although a number of States make the studies available to private citizens upon request. In general, the studies are distributed to public officials only.

(d) Thus, while a majority of the States do conduct assessmentsales ratio studies and make them available to representatives of State and local government, it does not appear that many States have used these studies to fulfill the second purpose recommended by the ACIR, that of informing the general taxpaying public.

F. CONSOLIDATING ASSESSMENT UNITS

Question No. 8. Have there been any changes in the size of assessment districts in your State in the last 10 years? If so, please give details.

ACIR RECOMMENDATION NO. 13

The geographical organization of each State's primary local assessment districts should be reconstituted, to the extent required, to give each district the size and resources it needs to become an efficient assessing unit and to produce a wellordered overall structure that makes successful State supervision feasible. No assessment district should be less than countywide, and when, as in very many instances, counties are too small to comprise efficient districts, multicounty districts should be created.

(a) Of the 49 States responding to this question (not applicable to the District of Columbia), only one reported any major change in the size of assessment districts within the State during the last 10 years. In Delaware, the number of independent school districts has been reduced by consolidation from 49 to 26. Several other States cited such changes as a scattered consolidation of school districts and the creation of special tax districts.

Minnesota reported that a recently enacted requirement for assessor certification by December 1, 1974, was resulting in the gradual replacement of township assessors by county assessors.

Wisconsin enacted a law in 1969 allowing the counties the option of substituting one county assessing jurisdiction for local jurisdictions within the county, by a two-thirds majority vote of county taxpayers. However, to date, only one county has taken advantage of this option.

Finally, in Alaska, a relatively rapid growth of municipalities within the past 10 years has resulted in the creation of unified homerule municipalities and cities, and a fairly substantial consolidation of previously fragmented districts.

(b) In making this recommendation, the ACIR noted that in far too many cases the local assessment effort is so fragmented as to make a well-coordinated, uniform professional assessment process next to impossible. The responses to question No. 8 indicate that on the whole, there has been almost no effort made by the States to implement this recommendation.

G. TAXING PERSONAL PROPERTY : REVENUES AND COSTS

Question No. 9. Does your State impose an ad valorem tax on any of the following kinds of personal property, other than business property:

Motor vehicles.

If any of these classes of property were fully or partially exempted from such taxation in the last 10 years, please supply details of the exemption and some of the considerations-such as administrative costs of enforcement—that motivated it.

In its 1963 Report, the ACIR noted that

"The ad valorem tax on tangible personal property in its broadest form is a very sanguine type of tax in what it anticipates both from the administrator and the taxpayer" (p. 30). Because of the difficulty in locating replacement revenues, the Commission did not recommend abolishing the tax on tangible personal property, but rather suggested that: "In the instance of any class of self-assessed personal property, unless the local assessor is given adequate means to audit the declarations of the taxpayers, the property shoud be assessed by the State or the tax on such property abolished." (Recommendation No. 4.)

(a) Of the 50 responses to this question, 40 States and the District of Columbia reported that they impose an ad valorem tax on one or more of the types of personal property specified in the question, although in six of these States the tax is imposed at the local level only (Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Virginia).

Fifteen States specifically reported imposing an ad valorem tax on personal intangible property, although several noted that this particular tax is virtually ignored by local assessors because of the difficulty of administering it. These States include: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina (which noted it received $27 million in revenue from