property taxes accounted for a very high percentage of all State-local tax revenues were: New Hampshire 69 percent; Wyoming-64 percent; New Jersey-57.1 percent; South Dakota-55 percent (for 1970); Massachusetts-53.5 percent; Kansas-53 percent (for fiscal year 1971); Nebraska-51.5 percent; Indiana-50 percent; and Texas-50 percent.

At the other extreme were States such as: Alabama-12.4 percent; Delaware-17.6 percent; Hawaii-19 percent; Tennessee-19 percent; Mississippi-21.5 percent; Kentucky-21.6 percent; South Carolina22.2 percent (for fiscal year 1971); North Carolina-23.3 percent; West Virginia-23.3 percent (for 1970); and Alaska-23.5 percent.1 (See attached chart for complete list.)

(c) Forty-three States provided budget figures for the State agency charged with supervision of property tax assessments. It should be noted here that in numerous cases these figures represent the budget for all tax administration, not just property tax. In addition, some of the figures noted are taken from future budget estimates, so that the correlation between taxes collected-question 1-and the cost of supervising property tax assessments at the State level-question 7— is not completely parallel.

Within the limits of the data, State expenditures for the supervision of property tax assessment range from highs of $4.18 million in California, $2.54 million in Ohio, $2.4 million in Maryland, and $2.015 million in Oregon, to lows of $56,590 in North Dakota, $109,370 in Mississippi, $150,000 in South Dakota, and $175,000 in North Carolina. In six States, there is no such States agency charged with the supervision of property tax assessments: Alaska, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and Virginia.

(See attached chart for individual State figures.)

(d) In those States-39 plus the District of Columbia-where it was possible to compute the proportion of State expenditures for supervision of property tax assessment to the total property tax revenue of the State, the average percentage was found to be 0.11 percent. Only in Hawaii and the District of Columbia did this figure exceed 1 percent.

(See attached chart for individual State figures.)

The size of this percentage figure clearly points out that the bulk of all assessment supervision still lies with local jurisdictions.

(e) Forty-two States and the District provided information as to the number of professional staff employees in the State agency charged with supervision of property tax assessments. The average figure for these States was approximately 41, ranging from a high of 228 in Ohio to a low of only one-certified appraiser-in Idaho, two in Alaska, and three in North Dakota.

(f) Thirty-five States plus the District provided information on

1 The following figures are helpful for the purpose of comparison: In fiscal year 1970, the property tax accounted for only 10 percent of all government revenues (Federal, State and local). During the same year the property tax accounted for almost 85 percent of all local tax revenue; and over the period from 1970-72, the property tax accounted for only slightly more than 2 percent of all State tax revenue.

number of industrial appraisers in the State supervisory agency. The average for these States is quite low-approximately five per Statelargely because 15 States reported having no industrial appraisers at all. (This in spite of the fact that an estimated 25 percent of all State property tax collections comes from commercial and industrial real estate, including public utilities.) These States are: Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, and Oklahoma.

B. PROFESSIONALIZATION: SELECTION, CERTIFICATION, AND TRAINING Question No. 2. Are local property tax assessors in your State elected or appointed? Are they required to meet any professional qualifications?

Question No. 3. Does your State or do local jurisdictions in it provide salary incentives for assessors who complete special training courses? Does the State make any financial contribution to such training? If so, how much was the most recent payment?

(a)

ACIR RECOMMENDATION NO. 16

All assessors should be appointed to office, with no requirement of prior district residence, by the chief executives or executive boards of local governments***they should be appointed for indefinite, rather than fixed, terms ***

In only 11 of the 49 States, plus the District of Columbia, responding to this question are local property tax assessors appointed in all cases. In 23 States the local assessors are elected, while in the remain

ing 15 States assessors may be elected or appointed, according to local practice. In one State, Hawaii, assessors are selected through the State civil service system.

(b)

ACIR RECOMMENDATION NO. 15

The State supervisory agency should be empowered to establish the professional qualifications of assessors and appraisers and certify candidates as to their fitness for employment on the basis of examinations given by it or of examinations satisfactory to it given by State or local personnel agency, and to revoke such certification for good and sufficient cause***No person should be permitted to hold the office of assessor or to appraise property for taxation who is not thus certified.

In 30 of the above 50 States (including the District of Columbia) there are no explicit State-required professional qualifications for the position of assessor. Five States have some limited requirements: In California, only appraisers and not assessors must be certified by the State; in Washington State, the staff members for county assessors must be certified by the State; in Utah assessors must be certified in order to assess any property having a market value in excess of $2,000; and in Illinois, only those assessors appointed to office must meet certain minimum qualifications.

Only 11 States reported requiring some special training or certification procedure of candidates for local assessor: Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, and West Virginia. In Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, and New Jersey, such requirements have only very recently been enacted.

(c) The ACIR report did not provide specific recommendations regarding salary incentives for assessors who complete special training, although the Commission did recommend that the States not place limits on salaries paid certified assessors and appraisers (Recommendation No. 17). The report also included a recommendation that any State establishing professional qualifications for assessors and appraisers arrange for and conduct regular training programs (Recommendation No. 22).

Of the 48 responses to this question, only five States reported providing bonuses to assessors receiving certification-Illinois, Maryland, Nebraska, New Mexico and Tennessee. The yearly total amounts paid out of such bonuses range from $1,500 to $2.000 in Nebraska to $83,750 in Illinois. Four States reported that in some individual counties bonuses are provided for certification or special training. Several other States provide incentives only insofar as the salary schedule is related to amount of training and experience. The Arkansas constitution contains a limitation on the salary of assessors.

There is considerable variation among the States which regard to other forms of State contribution to the training of assessors and appraisers. Thirteen States reported making no contribution at all to such training. However, a majority of States (29) reported sponsoring special training sessions for assessors or contributing to the cost

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