C -3. '* s -' /x State and Local Ratio Studies, Property Tax Assessment, and Transfer Taxes U.S. Department of Commerce BUREAU OF THE CENSUS ¥ • I 5 31 a» *->■->■■ State and Local Government Special Studies No. 99 Ok ^^ M II IB HI ■I II II II II II II M II H It* JLLlfl S3 mi mm ii B ^ ^r Hi i^^^ — ^y ir "=r~=-^ »SiBi ■ y\*a'<,.M J m r IT lin li Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation http://archive.org/details/statelocalratiosOOunit State and Local Government Special Studies No. 99 State and Local Ratio Studies, Property Tax Assessment, and Transfer Taxes Issued October 1980 *^ of c 0a ° s r ATES f **" U.S. Department of Commerce Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary Luther H. Hodges, Jr., Deputy Secretary Courtenay M. Slater, Chief Economist BUREAU OF THE CENSUS Vincent P. Barabba, Director For sale l>} the SuiH'rin l undent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, ]>.('. 3040 BUREAU OF THE CENSUS Vincent P. Barabba, Director Daniel B. Levine, Deputy Director Shirley Kallek, Associate Director for Economic Fields GOVERNMENTS DIVISION Sherman Landau, Chief ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The preparation of this report was made possible only by the cooperation of the many State and local assessing officials who supplied the basic data. Their generous assistance is greatly appreciated. This report was completed in the Governments Division by the Taxation Branch, headed by John O. Behrens, who supervised the work and wrote the text, under the general direction of John R. Coleman, Assistant Division Chief for Economic Statistics. William C. Hulcher and John R. Kennedy provided the operational and technical management necessary for obtaining and tabulating the data, with assistance from Karen Collins, Lucy Mimm, and Pamela Byrd. Publications Services Division provided advice and service in preparation of copy for publica- tion. Publication copy was prepared in the Governments Division under the supervision of Corrine Davis. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 75-60080 SUGGESTED CITATION U.S. Bureau of the Census, State and Local Ratio Studies, Property Tax Assessment, and Transfer Taxes, Series GSS No. 99, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1980 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402. CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 Table 1. Number of Primary Assessing Jurisdictions, by Type of Government, by State: 1979 19 2. Scope of State Ratio Studies 20 3. Jurisdictional Classifications for Which State Agencies Derive Ratios, by Status of Ratio and by State 21 4. Area Locations for Which State Agencies Derive Ratios, by Status of Ratio and by State 21 5. Property Use Categories for Which State Agencies Derive Ratios, by Status of Ratio and by State 22 6. Major Characteristics of State Ratio Studies 23 7. Categories of Sales or Other Transfers of Property Excluded From State Ratio Studies 25 8. Statistical Measures Derived for State Ratio Studies 26 9. Use of Ratio Findings Contained in State Ratio Studies 27 10. Scope of Ratio Studies Conducted by Selected Local Jurisdictions 28 1 1 . Intra-Area Classifications for Which Selected Local Jurisdictions Derive Ratios, by Jurisdiction 29 12. Property Use Categories for Which Selected Local Jurisdictions Derive Ratios, by Jurisdiction 31 13. Major Characteristics of Ratio Studies Conducted by Selected Local Jurisdictions 33 14. Categories of Sales or Other Transfers Excluded From Ratio Studies Conducted by Selected Local Jurisdictions 35 15. Statistical Measures Derived From Ratio Studies by Local Jurisdictions 37 16. Purposes and Implementation of Ratio Studies Conducted by Selected Local Jurisdictions 39 17. State Transfer Taxes and Recordation Requirements 41 18. Transfer Taxes and Recordation Requirements of Local Jurisdictions 43 Appendix A: Legal Basis for Assessed Value of Realty, by State: 1979 and Subsequent Periods 45 Appendix B : Legal Basis for Assessed Value of Tangible Personal Property, by State: 1979 and Subsequent Periods 48 Appendix C: Provisions for Assessment of Property for Agricultural, Open Space, and Associated Explicit Uses, by State: 1979 and Subsequent Periods 50 Appendix D : Selected References 53 INTRODUCTION This study reports on what State and various local govern- ments do in order to discover actual assessment levels and the uniformity exhibited by individual assessed values. The activity involved is called an assessment ratio study. It is a systematic attempt, undertaken within the requirements of statistical prin- ciples, to compare the assessed values of individual properties with the actual worth of those properties in the market, as evidenced by bona fide measurable sales, or by professional appraisals. A ratio study occurs because the government conducting it needs to know for some reason, what the assessed values repre- sent in terms of a common level, market value. It may be that the tax base is the means through which State aid is appor- tioned. It may instead be a need to correct inequitable assess- ments, individually or as part of a jurisdictionwide reassessment. The need, in any case, exists only because it has not been common for the assessing process, by itself, to yield a uniform set of values at the statutory level. That assessing process and its environment receive attention below, as a necessary preface to what our survey revealed. Proposition 13, and despite the continuing growth of intergov- ernmental revenue in local treasuries. Local property taxes increased by 31 percent in 5 years to $63 billion in 1979, less than the 48 percent increase registered between 1969 and 1974, but still comprising more than three-fourths of all local tax revenue. In proportionate terms, the 1979 local yield reflected a decline of 8 points from an 86 percent share of local taxes 10 years earlier. Over the same period State and local property taxes together increased by 95 percent but decreased propor- tionally from 41 percent to 31 percent of all taxes. Thus, property taxes remain important, but in a decidedly changed structural pattern, now likely to be characterized by trilevel participation. In fiscal 1969 local governments obtained 85 percent of tax revenue, or 41 percent of all general revenue, from property taxes. Another 36 percent of general revenue came from intergovernmental, largely State, sources. Ten years later the intergovernmental share had increased to 45 percent, while property taxes accounted for only 30 percent of general revenue. Moreover, direct Federal fiscal aid to local governments, which had been only 3 percent of general revenue, climbed to a tenth of the total in fiscal 1979. Details of the new fiscal land- scape are apparent in table B. THE PRESENT ASSESSING ENVIRONMENT Property taxes now and tomorrow Assessing is the measurement function necessary for property taxation, still a mainstay for local governments. In calendar 1979, State and local property taxes accounted for $65.5 bil- lion, or 31 percent of all tax revenue, as table A indicates. The portion comprising State property taxes is very small, just under $2.7 billion in 1979, or 2 percent of all State tax revenue. Local property taxes, on the other hand, remain substantial, despite State assistance to localities is dual in nature. Direct financial participation coexists with State-provided technical service and supervision. So it is with assessment ratio studies, now a regular activity in 42 States, plus the District of Columbia. Though Puerto Rico does not presently conduct ratio studies on a regular basis, legislation there, when fully implemented, would make possible the assembly of the necessary sales data for these studies. The Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands has been con- ducting informal ratio studies for approximately 5years. Its cur- rent effort, dealing with sales for a 3-year period, incorporates the use of computers for the first time. Table A. Tax Revenue, State and Local Governments, Calendar Years 1969, 1974, and 1979 (Amounts in millions of dollars) Item State and local cjove rnments State governments only Local governments only 1969 1974 1979 1969 1974 1979 1969 1974 1979 82,826 33,556 40.5 135,457 49,426 36.5 211,273 65,546 31.0 45,059 1,073 2.4 77,398 1,366 1.8 130,329 2,670 2.0 37,767 32,483 86.0 58,059 48,060 82.8 80,944 Property taxes only Percent of total 62,876 77 7 Source: Adapted from material compiled for Quarterly Summary of State and Local Tax Revenue, issues covering October-December 1969 (GT69, No. 4, March 1970), October-December 1974 (GT74, No. 4, April 1975), and October-December 1979 (GT79, No. 4, April 1980), U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. INTRODUCTION Table B. Revenue Relationships, State and Local Governments: 1968-69 and 1978-79 (Amounts in millions of doll ars) State and lo« I governments State governments onl V Loc al governments only Item 1968-69 1978-79 1968-69 1978-79 1968-69 1978-79 Amount Per- cent Amount Per- cent Amount Per- cent Amount Per- cent Amount Per- cent Amount Per- cent 114,550 19,153 19,153 76,712 30,673 100.0 16.7 16.7 67.0 26.8 343,327 75,144 75,144 205,556 64,930 100.0 21.9 21.9 59.9 18.9 67,312 17,775 16,907 868 41,931 981 100.0 26.4 25.1 1.3 62.3 1.5 208,037 57,077 54,542 2,535 124,962 2,490 100.0 27.4 26.2 1.2 60.1 1.2 71,943 26,082 2,245 23,837 34,781 29,692 100.0 36.3 3.1 33.1 48.3 41.3 211,887 94,663 20,602 74,062 80,594 62,440 100.0 From State governments From local governments Tax revenue: Total . 44.7 9.7 35.0 38 29.5 Note: Duplicative transactions between levels of government are excluded. Source: Adapted from material in Governmental Finances in 1968-69, GF69, No. 5, September 1970, and Preliminary Data on State and Local Government Finances in 1978-79, GF79, No. 5P, August 1980, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC. —Represents zero or rounds to zero. Assessing: fundamentals and functionaries In its essence, assessing is officially valuing property for pur- poses of taxation. Because it is necessarily comprehensive, in that all taxable property must be valued, the assessing function implies at least three-fold activity: discovery of all taxable property, regardless of the effort required to find it; listing, or systematically accounting for all taxable property in some written form; and valuation, or officially expressing in money the worth of each taxable property, usually in terms of its "highest and best use," as of the date and at the value level prescribed by State law. That level is market value or a speci- fied percentage thereof in 37 States.' In 11 others, State law specifies, statewide or for jurisdictions affected, two or more classes, each of which is subject to assessment at a separately specified percentage of market value. The District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and West Virginia provide one value level, and classify by rate instead. Reference to legal standards based fundamentally on a com- mon denominator, market value, suggests that State law pre- scribes uniformity among all assessed values, or only such departures from uniformity as legal classification provides. The implicit suggestion is important, for actual uniformity among all individual values is a critical prerequisite to use of such values as the basis for directly calculating either individual tax burdens or jurisdictionwide entitlements to State aid allotments related to assessed value. Because de facto assessed values, however, may or may not reflect the value levels prescribed by State law, ratio studies have come into use as the means through which a governmental agency, or some other entity, can draw an informed conclusion ' See appendices A, B, and C. about how de facto assessed values, individually or in the aggre- gate, relate to the prescribed level or levels. Conclusions about aggregates are necessary for State officials who distribute State aid on the basis of relative property- measured wealth among counties, cities, and towns. If that basis is not expressed in terms of a common level for all aided juris- dictions, it can hardly serve as an equitable criterion. Thus, counties A, B, and C, with sales price-oriented assessment levels of 60 percent, 30 percent, and 20 percent, respectively, can equitably receive assessed value-based, proportionately equal shares of a State support grant only if their respective assessed value aggregates are converted to a common level of value. That conversion is the equalization process that ratio studies make possible. The same sort of equalizing process applied to differences among individual assessed values is usually called assessment review. An example is the situation where houses X and Y, each recently sold for $100,000, are discovered to have assessed values of $30,000 and 860,000, respectively, in a county where the legal standard is full market value. Each house is under- assessed, but not uniformly so. Other things being equal, house Y has a tax bill twice that of house X, for no good reason. In any review, the assessed value of house Y should be reduced, or the assessed value of house X increased, or perhaps both changes should occur. What actually happens may well hinge on whether the county conducts ratio studies itself, or uses county-related results of the State's ratio study. Either alternative depends, even more basically, on whether results of ratio studies are in fact available to the appeals process. If they are not, an ag- grieved taxpayer will need to present externally assembled evi- dence showing the same inequitable situation. Just citing the legal standard will probably not suffice for relief, since each house has an assessed value that is too low by that criterion. INTRODUCTION The official who performs the assessing function is, in many States, known as the "assessor," though several titles now de- scribe the job, which is also variable as to appointment or elec- tion. In Washington, D.C., overall responsibility lies with the Director of Finance and Revenue, an appointee of the Mayor. Florida a few years ago adopted the title "property appraiser" for each county assessor, an elected official. Illinois has assessors in some townships and counties, supervisors of assessment in others. Kentucky calls each county assessor a "property valua- tion administrator," an appointed official. In Maryland, where the State administers the function, a supervisor of assessments is appointed for each county. Montana also has State administration, with each elected county assessor an agent of the State. Ohio, on the other hand, places the re- sponsibility in each county with the "county auditor," also an elected official. In Vermont the assessor is the "lister," an official of the town government. County assessors are elected in Texas, but each also performs the tax collecting function and is known as "assessor-collector." That State, incidentally, has a profusion of assessors. Each inde- pendent school district assessor and city assessor administers a jurisdiction that overlaps territory in one or more counties. In some situations the same person by contract performs the func- tion in the school district and city. Each taxable property in Texas is likely to have three separate assessed values, each at a different value level. The beginnings of organizational change are now in place, however, under 1979 legislation, to be fully implemented by January 1, 1982, establishing an "appraisal district" in each county and coterminous with it. Each taxing unit within all or part of the county, including the county government itself may, by its own vote, elect to have the ap- praisal district perform the appraisal function for ad valorem tax purposes. Implementation of the new law remains an impond- erable at this time. Whatever the title of the official may be, the basic assessing unit is called the primary assessing jurisdiction. This is defined as one of the contiguous territories (counties, or other equiva- lent units) which together occupy the entire area of the State, with each of such units having initial responsibility for deter- mining the tax base for general property taxes levied by local governments and, where applicable, by the State government. In 1979 there were 13,439 such jurisdictions, as shown by State in table 1. The number has declined during the last 40 years, as table C makes evident. Maryland and Montana are shown in table 1 as having one jurisdiction each, since administration is statewide. 2 The same is still true for Hawaii, though in that 2 This is a change in reporting method from that used in 1975, and in 1977 for volume 2 of the 1977 Census of Governments. See that volume (detailed citation in footnote 4), and also State and Local Ratio Studies and Property Assessment, GSS No. 72, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., August 1975, pages 2 3 and 19. State assessing becomes a county function, effective July 1 1981 . 3 Table C. Number of Primary Assessing Jurisdictions, by Type of Government Years Indicated Type of government All types Counties 2 . . . Municipalities 3 Townships 4 . . Other' 1940 1 26,304 1,956 4,313 17,625 2,410 1965' 14,496 2,512 2,028 9,953 3 1974' 13,516 2,555 1,968 8,991 2 1979' 13,439 2,473 1,829 9,133 4 'Source for 1940 data (48 States): Assessment Organization and Personnel, National (now International) Association of Assessing Officers, Chicago, Illinois, August 1941, page 38. Source for 1965 data: Primary Assessing Areas for Local Property Taxation, State and Local Government Special Study No. 50, U.S. De- partment of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, April 1966, page 6. Source for 1974 data: State and Local Ratio Studies and Property Assessment, State and Local Government Special Studies, No. 72, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., August 1975, table B, page 3. Source for 1979 data: Table 1 . 2 Includes county-equivalent cities, or city-county consolidations; parishes in Louisiana; boroughs in Alaska (1965, 1974, and 1979). 3 Includes city-equivalent towns, villages, and boroughs, as in Con- necticut, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. 4 Includes towns in New England States. 5 For 1940 includes 859 city wards; 439 school and civil districts; 1,112 unorganized areas. Note that primary assessing jurisdictions are those with initial responsibility for the assessing function. A summary under this definition thus includes, in the States affected, individual juris- dictions subject to a degree of supervision and/or equalization at the county level, for the determination of assessed values sub- ject to county taxes. This latter objective, county-usable as- sessed values, conditions the classification of jurisdictions used by the Bureau of the Census for the taxable property values survey it conducts quinquennially for each Census of Govern- ments. For the 1977 edition, the Bureau concluded that there were 7,805 jurisdictions with responsibility for producing assessed values usable at the county (or county equivalent) level for general property taxation. 4 They include all of the primary assessing jurisdictions cited above and detailed in table 1, and can be classified into three predominant types: 1) County assessing system (type CO): In this system, the county assessor (or corresponding official for an area otherwise 3 Hawaii has three counties (Hawaii, Kauai, and Maui), one city- county (Honolulu), and a fifth jurisdiction, Kalawao, which is entirely a State responsibility. Kalawao has a State administered treatment center for those afflicted with Hansen's disease. 4 See Taxable Property Values and Assessment /Sales Price Ratios, Volume 2, 1977 Census of Governments, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, November 1978, page 13. INTRODUCTION designated but performing county functions) exercises initial official responsibility for determining the assessed value of all taxable property. Thirty-one States and the District of Colum- bia use this system exclusively. The assessing official attains the job by election in some places, by appointment in others. There are additionally six States where the above CO type applies only as parenthetically indicated. The States include New York (application in New York City, Nassau and Tompkins Counties); Illinois (19 of 102 counties); Iowa (99 counties, minus areas assessed by 19 city assessors); Missouri (91 of the State's 114 counties); Pennsylvania (a minority of counties); and South Carolina (a majority of counties). 2) Township-municipal-county system (type TMC): Here a township or municipal assessor, often elected, exercises initial responsibility for determining the assessed value of each taxable property. A frequently associated feature is some degree of supervisory or equalizing activity at the county and/or State level, though in certain places the original municipal assessment becomes the official value, subject to change only within the appeals process. The TMC structure prevails throughout Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, New Jersey, and North Dakota. In addition, it exists in those parts of Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina not within the above CO classification. 3) Township-municipal system (type TM): Within this system township or municipal assessors, elected or appointed, have the initial assessing responsibility, with no equalizing or supervisory involvement by county government. TM assessing occurs in the six New England States (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont), and also in Michigan and Wisconsin. It is noted also that primary assessing jurisdictions still may coexist, in relatively few States, with municipal, school district, or other assessing areas which partially overlap them. An over- lapping assessing jurisdiction is a local government unit whose assessing official determines the value of each taxable property for that local unit's purposes, without reference to the assessed value determined for the same property for purposes of the primary assessing jurisdiction within which the subject property is also located. Thus, in a situation where a city assessor pro- duces assessed values used by the city and also by the county, for city-located parcels within it, there would be no overlapping assessing jurisdictions. Forty years ago there were 6,300 overlapping jurisdictions in 22 States. The number of States has dwindled to a relative few, notably Texas. Other States where overlapping jurisdictions are believed still to exist include Mississippi, Missouri (Kansas City and Jefferson City), Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. Though the particular status of the jurisdiction as primary or overlapping does not determine assessment quality, the inherent redundancy of the latter type presages its eventual demise. Equity's conflict with simplicity As noted earlier, one aim of those who conduct assessment ratio studies is to achieve the uniformity intended for an ad valorem base, at least to the extent needed to implement even- handed use of the particular base involved. A State dispensing aid to counties on the basis of countywide assessed value aggre- gates requires, as a minimum, uniformity among the respective aggregates. Similarly, a conscientious assessor, anxious to dis- cover individual relationships between mar On an annual basis, the volume reaches 3.7 million sales, or 4.2 percent of the total number of locally assessed taxable parcels. These are measurable sales of ordinary real property,' 7 however, and the annual turnover may be more than twice the 6-month figure. A realistic rate may thus be closer to the 8 or 9 percent suggested by some authorities.' x In any event, any State which uses only sales prices as market value indicators necessarily begins with the assumption that properties which sell, a market selected group, reveal informa- tion useful to judgments about the entire taxable realty uni- verse. Even if all sales are used, no more than 9 percent of the parcel inventory becomes the basis for a judgment about all of it. Sales are a sample of the parcel universe, or at least that part of it subject to market transactions. Except for Indiana, Missouri, and New York, all States use sales, at least in part. Even in the States dependent on appraisals only, sales are important, since appraisals reflect attention to all three value approaches, one of which is assembly and analysis of market (sales) data. 1 s Taxable Property Values and Assessment/Sales Price Ratios, op. at., table 6, page 53. 1 6 Ibid., page 60. "A measurable sale is a transfer of realty at a price reflecting the interaction of a buyer and a seller who are informed about the sublet property and deal on an arm's length basis, without duress. Ordinary real property, in 1977, excluded: realty with an assessed value above an amount which, in light of the assessing area's aggregate ratio for all prop- erties, could be presumed to have a market value in excess of approxi- mately $750,000; and separately assessed mineral rights and unclassifi- able property. ' "See Monitoring Foreign Ownership of U.S. Real Estate, A Report to Congress, Volume 2, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.. 1979, pages 187 and 202. Table F. United States Summary, Number of Parcels, Locally Assessed Realty, Years Indicated 1956 1966 1976 Percentage Use category Number (thousands) Percent of total Number (thousands) Percent of total Number (thousands) Percent of total 1956 to 1976 61,158 14,185 12,694 30,924 29,973 '2,291 1,942 298 1,067 100.0 23.2 20.8 50.6 49.0 3.7 3.2 0.5 1.7 74,832 14,085 14,250 42,329 40,436 2,487 2,112 376 1,679 100.0 18.8 19.0 56.6 54.0 3.3 2.8 0.5 2.2 88,194 13,893 17,492 51,971 48,750 3.663 3,179 485 1,175 100.0 15.8 19.8 58.9 55.3 4.2 3.6 0.5 1.3 44.2 (2.1) Vacant platted lots Other categories: 37.8 68.1 Single-family houses only Commercial and industrial 62.6 59.9 63.7 Industrial 62.8 Other and unallocable 10.1 Note: bxcept for decrease shown in parentheses, 1956 to 1976 changes are increases. Source: Censuses of Governments, lor 1957, Volume 5 (as revised), 1967, Volume 2, and 1977, Volume 2. '"Total commercial and industrial" includes, for California and Nevada, properties not allocable by type — principally separately assessed mineral rights. INTRODUCTION 11 Where fewer than all sales are used, the source data in effect represent a sample of a sample, in terms of taxable base. Ap- praisals supplementing sales often constitute a sample repre- senting that portion of the taxable base (e.g., certain com- mercial and residential property) rarely transferred as part of a usable sale. States which use appraisals only commonly provide for coverage cycles, with appraisals carried out in a portion of local jurisdictions each year. Whether or not properties that sell accurately represent all of those that do not is a proposition that eludes proof. It has been deemed basically reasonable because no other inference seems more reasonable. With the advent of assessment standards that condition assessments on a time and cost of acquisition in the past (e.g., Proposition 13-type), the reasonable quality of the basic assumption underlying ratio studies will encounter increas- ing scrutiny. Selection criteria The budget influences and also reflects operational choices. Asserting this neither overstates nor ignores statistical integrity. It underscores the reality that adequate resources must be avail- able. This makes necessary careful revisions concerning the num- ber of sales to enumerate (all, or a representative sample) and the number and type of appraisals to include. With respect to sales, once a decision is taken to use a sample instead of all sales, a strategy for stratification is developed. Elements conditioning selection of a sale for a particular stra- tum may include the magnitude of the assessed value involved, the property use category, and statistical relationships between the applicable assessed value and the last previous sales price. In the alternative, strata may be determined simply within assigned assessed value ranges, with selection from each stratum on a random basis. Appraisals deemed necessary will be decided in accordance with a decision on the residual representation neces- sary for valid statistical use. Individual States differ substantially in selection criteria pro- cedures. A few examples follow. Florida For its 1979 "in depth" study encompassing 19 counties, the State targeted a total of 6,645 properties, in 7 property use categories, for scrutiny. The property representation was to come from verified sales if possible and appraisals if necessary (see background data in table 6). Most of the appraisals oc- curred in the following categories: Multifamily residential, com- mercial, industrial, agricultural, and otherwise unclassified "high value" realty. The number of properties in each group was the one deemed likely to produce for each group the standard devia- tion sought, at the 95 percent confidence level. Idaho In each of three use categories where appraisals were deemed necessary (commercial, agricultural, and timberland), the State based minimum number of appraisals on a relationship with 3 percent of the estimated market value for the category. Maryland For its 1979 study the State relied entirely on sales for re- sults affecting residential properties, because the latter "repre- sent about 83 percent of the total number of assessable ac- counts." Residential sales provide the data base under a plan for completely computerized residential ratio studies on a contin- uous basis. To supplement such sales for its 1979 study, the State car- ried out 650 appraisals, 500 involving commercial and industrial properties, and 150 dealing with agricultural parcels. Selections were made on the basis of proportions of the total assessed value represented by category totals. New York First the State allocates appraisal cost units for work in each municipality, basing such units on empirical data from the pre- ceding ratio study survey, adjusted for known cost changes since. Then market value intervals are established within each major use category for each assessing jurisdiction (in most in- stances, the town). A proportionate number of appraisal cost units are then made available for properties within each value range and use category. For its two year study finished in 1978, the State completed 55,794 appraisals, classified as follows: Residential, 28,337; apartment properties, 1,569; commercial, 8,009; industrial, 1,325; agricultural, 7,256; and vacant land, 9,298. Ohio The State's commissioner of tax equalization is charged with the duty of equalizing real property values in the year of sexen- nial reappraisal, and in the third calendar year following such reappraisal. As a part of the equalization process, the commis- sioner trends, by means of regression techniques, assessment- sales ratios for the six semiannual periods preceding an equaliza- tion year, in order to obtain an estimated assessment-sales ratio as of January 1 of the equalization year. To supplement assessment-sales ratio information used in equalization pro- cedures, the commissioner orders test appraisals to be made. For the most recent equalization, that of tax year 1979, there were 782 appraisals completed, as follows: Agricultural, 291; com- mercial, 369; and industrial, 122. Washington For its sales sample the State's department of revenue de- velops a sample plan for each county, based on previous year's sales volume. Initially acceptable are sales involving warranty deeds and contracts. Sales for a current study must have oc- curred during the last 5 months of the preceding calendar year, or during the first 3 months of the study assessment year. Sales excluded fall in any one of 25 categories. 12 INTRODUCTION To supplement sales, the department reviews a county's prior year's sales studies to discover any assessed value stratum or land use class without sufficient sales for producing a valid measurement of assessment level. Five years ago, 16 States calculated all three measures. They include the 10 States above designated with an asterisk, plus the following: California, Kentucky, Montana, Nevada, Pennsyl- vania, and South Dakota. Where appraisals are deemed necessary, a stratified random sampling of affected real property listings takes place, with indi- vidual assessed value the controlling element in stratification, and random number tables used as deemed necessary. The actual number selected within each stratum is determined by application of appropriate statistical techniques, related to pre- vious year ratio results for the county. As table 8 indicates, 36 States now calculate aggregate ratios, an increase of 5 over the number that did so 5 years ago. States now producing mean and median ratios total 36 and 33, respec- tively, up by 10 and 9 States, respectively, over corresponding summaries for 1974. The counts for 1 979 include California in a planning sense only, since studies there are presently discon- tinued. Department staff specialists then appraise the selected prop- erties, individually and not en masse, using the three approaches to value (depreciated replacement cost, capitalized income, and market ratio analysis). For the State's 1979 study the depart- ment completed 1,475 individual appraisals, slightly more than 2.5 percent of the total sample. Statistical measures derived Two types of statistical measures predominate as ratio study results, each related to one of the two fundamental goals of assessment. First there are measures of central tendency, indi- cators of where the assessment levels in fact stand, and thus related to the goal of compliance with legally prescribed value levels. Three such measures emerge from many assessment ratio studies: the arithmetic mean, median, and aggregate ratios. The arithmetic mean is simply the common "average" of all the individual ratios, each of which expresses the relationship, for the sold property involved, between the assessed value of the property and the price for which it sold. Expressed mathe- matically, the mean is the familiar quotient which results from dividing the sum of individual ratios by the number of sold properties involved. The next measure of central tendency is the median, the ratio with the middle value in an array of individual ratios arranged from lowest to highest, assuming an odd number of sales in the array. If the array contains an even number of sales, the median is the mean of the two middle ratios. Finally, the aggregate assessment-sales price ratio presents the prevailing assessed value aggregate for all sold properties as a percentage of the sum of all the sales prices. The 22 States listed below, and in table 8, calculate all three of the above measures: Alabama Illinois 'Nebraska Utah Arizona 'Iowa *North Dakota Vermont Connecticut Kansas Oklahoma 'Virginia Florida Maine 'Oregon 'Washington *Georgia 'Minnesota Tennessee 'Wisconsin *ldaho Missouri The second fundamental assessment goal is uniformity, i.e., the quality, for each assessed value, of bearing the same relation- ship to market value as that contained in every other assessed value in the jurisdiction. Uniformity among values was, in sim- pler times, the surest setting for equitable tax bills. Nowadays it's just as critical for attainment of an equitable tax base, since ultimate tax bills may have little direct relationship to uniform values, given the owner income and status influences of circuit breakers and the like alluded to earlier. Measuring uniformity comes about by measuring its con- verse, dispersion or the extent to which assessed values scatter around a mean or median, and thus are not uniform. As in earlier studies, the most popular measure remains the coefficient of intra-area dispersion. Still sometimes called the "index of assessment inequality" or "the Russell index," 1 " the coefficient of intra-area dispersion is the quotient produced by dividing the average deviation (from either a mean or median ratio) by that ratio. In the simplified example that follows, the median (middle) ratio is 19 percent, and on the basis of the five sales presented, any given assessed value in the jurisdiction involved may be as much as 55.3 percent above or 55.3 percent below where it should be. The Bureau of the Census computes the coefficient of intra-area dispersion for each sample jurisdiction as part of its taxable property values survey for each quinquen- nial Census of Governments. Example, coefficient of intra-area dispersion Assessment- Deviations Assessed sales pr ice from value Sales price $20,000 ratio (per 3 cent) median $ 600 16 300 3,000 10 9 7,600 40,000 19 _ 2,000 8,000 25 6 4,050 13,500 30 1 1 42 Median ratio: 19 percent Average deviation: 1 0.5 (computation : 42 t 4) Coefficient of intra-area dispersion: 55.3 percent "Trie coefficient was popularized by Dr. John H. Russell, former director of research for the Virginia Department of Taxation. An early discussion of its use as a measure of assessment uniformity is contained in "The Russell Formula," Assessors News Letter, Volume 21 (viii) August 1955, pages 94-95. INTRODUCTION 13 The present survey reveals that 29 States calculate the coeffi- cient of intra-area dispersion as an integral part of their ratio studies. Sixteen of the States base the coefficient on the median, while 12 use the mean, and one State (Nevada) calcu- lates a coefficient from both. Five years ago 21 States produced the coefficient, 12 of them using the median as the basis. One reason for the measure's acceptance is intuitive appeal. Another is the consensus that usually an array of assessment ratios is not normally distributed. Whether or not that is always the fact, some authorities ques- tion a dependence on nonparametric measures only. 20 Indeed, 23 States now compute the standard deviation, one more than the number of States doing so for 1974. The standard deviation, a measure regarded as very helpful in the interpretation of data likely to be normally distributed, is the square root of the vari- ance. It results from extracting the square root of squares of deviations from the mean (not the median) of a frequency dis- tribution. Though a frequently used measure of dispersion, the standard deviation is sometimes faulted for emphasizing ex- treme values (a consequence of squaring the deviations). When the standard deviation is divided by the arithmetic mean, the quotient expressed as a percentage is the coefficient of variation, a measure now computed, as part of ratio studies in nine States. This coefficient gives an indication of relative dis- persion. Individual States go further - Montana and Nevada, for exam- ple, compute "Pearson's coefficient of skewness," an aid in the evaluation of "the shape of the distribution" of the individual ratios. This coefficient is the quotient of the quantity, three times the difference between mean and median ratios, divided by the standard deviation. Samples with a coefficient of skew- ness between minus 1 and plus 1 may be considered "approxi- mately normal." Using the coefficient implies close scrutiny of any "outlier" ratios in the distribution. Montana also computes a coefficient of kurtosis to derive an indication of peakedness of graphed ratios. firming or changing existing individual assessed values, and to discover a pattern of adjustment factors which, when applied to loca( jurisdiction aggregates, will yield for each jurisdiction and for the State, assessed value aggregates at a common level with respect to market value. In brief, the State arrives at the results of ratio studies in order to review (individual assessments) and equalize (jurisdiction aggregate assessments). "Equalization" is sometimes understood to have "review" and "equalize" conno- tations. In such circumstances, the "review" function can be thought of as equalization within a jurisdiction, whereas the equalization function can be said to equalize aggregates between and among jurisdictions. One traditional equalization purpose of ratio studies still pre- dominates despite many changes in school finance, especially with more direct State fiscal participation since the succession of court cases that began with Serrano in 1971. 2 ' That purpose is the establishment of a common level, equalized property value base to serve as the means through which State aid to public schools can be apportioned. As table 9 indicates, 33 States now use ratio studies for this purpose. This compares with 27 so reporting for 1974. There are other aid apportionment objectives as well, as table 9 makes evident: health grants (Georgia); and aid, specified or not, to local governments (Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and New York). Ratio study results are also used in the development of bases that condition debt or levy limits (Illinois, New York, and Oregon), assessment levels for public service property (Virginia), and even salary levels (Oklahoma). In the "review" area, assessment ratio studies influence iden- tity and selection of reappraisal targets, according to area, use category, or both, in 36 States, substantially more than the 23 so involved 5 years ago. They also constitute an important ele- ment in evaluating reappraisal effectiveness in local jurisdictions in 26 States, 11 more than those reporting this purpose for 1974. At perhaps a less esoteric level, 20 States now calculate the price-related differential, also called the "index of regressive assessment." Only 10 States produced this measure 5 years ago. The price-related differential is the quotient obtained as a result of dividing the mean ratio for a given group of sales by the aggregate ratio for the same group. An area differential ratio that exceeds 100 percent indicates that relatively high value properties are likely to have lower ratios than relatively low value properties. For such differential ratios at or below 100 percent, the converse is true. Uses of ratio study findings The use of ratio study findings in pursuing individual appeals has attracted similarly heightened interest, though the assertion cannot be confirmed directly by this survey. Table 9 shows that the possibility of using such findings for taxpaying appeals does exist in 17 States (one in an "unofficial" manner). The same number of States (though not the same States) provided evi- dence of the same possibility 5 years ago. Despite this apparent stagnation of interest, the instances of ratio study involvement in court cases would seem to have increased during the past 5 years. Specific examples are cases brought under the Railroad Regulatory Revitalization and Reform Act. Others include the As stated earlier, and as shown in table 9 States conduct ratio studies for two principal reasons: to marshal evidence for con- 2 "See Who Pays the Property Tax? by Henry Aaron, The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., 1975, page 15. 2 ' Major cases: Serrano v. Priest, 557 P 2d 929, 135 Cal. Rptr. 345 (1976); Serrano v. Priest, 487 P 2d 1241, 96 Cal. Rptr. 601 (1971); San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 41 1 U.S. 1 , 93 S. Ct., 1278 (1973); Robinson v. Cahill, 62 N.J. 473 (1973); Shof stall v. Hollins, 110 Arizona 88, 515 P 2d 590 (1973); Horton v. Meskill, 172 Conn. 615, 358 A 2d, 700; Pauley v. Kelly, 225 S.E. 2d 859 (1979). 14 INTRODUCTION still numerous State court school finance cases. One develop- ment of note is the more common use of privately conducted studies carried out for a specific court case or similar taxpayer purpose. RATIO STUDIES BY LOCAL JURISDICTIONS Assessment ratio studies by local assessing jurisdictions pri- marily serve a managerial purpose. They provide evidence help- ful to the assessor for deciding which areas within the jurisdic- tion, and which property use categories throughout the jurisdiction require priority attention, and in what order. The local studies also fit within the operational framework conditioning those conducted by States. Survey findings reveal that in 42 of 45 States, officials at the local level provide the basic sales data to the State agency. Studies at the two levels tend to be complementary. The same sensitivity to statistical requirements is usually evident in most State and local efforts. The major difference is the greater proximity to day-by-day assessment policy that local studies naturally exhibit. As if to confirm this, assessing officials in several localities carry out studies on a continuing basis, relying on computer technology for immediate access to ratio study results for an entire jurisdic- tion, a neighborhood, a group of census tracts, all sales in a particular use category, or any desired "sort" programmed. The material which follows highlights aspects of local assess- ment ratio studies presented in tables 10 through 16. Data are based on questionnaire responses, other materials provided by respondents, and telephone conversations. In that connection, the current survey produced fewer responses than the 1974 study, because the 1 1 California jurisdictions taking part 5 years ago had nothing to report this time. A summary of responses with respect to each table (except table 14, which demonstrates substantial consensus) is presented here. Local jurisdictions responding With respect to In 1974 su rvey In 1979 sur 51 vey In both surveys Table 10 56 28 Table 1 1 51 49 26 Table 12 56 48 28 Table 13 54 51 27 Table 15 54 51 28 Table 16 53 49 27 General features As table 10 indicates, 37 of the 51 local jurisdictions re- sponding conduct ratio studies annually, and three carry out the work every 6 months. Corresponding frequencies were cited 5 years ago by 34 and 8 jurisdictions, respectively. Five places now do the job on either a continuous, "as required," or "when requested" basis. The sales occurrence period encountered extends from 6 months, in 3 places, all the way to 4 years, though the predomi- nant time used is 1 year, a practice in 29 of the jurisdictions. None of the places that reported in the current survey pub- lish results. In 1974 five did so. The taxpayer can see the appli- cable ratio on the tax bill, however, in three places, and ratio results are otherwise obtainable in 38 others (in 21 States), 8 more than 5 years ago. Only ten jurisdictions in seven States now report that findings are not available. Nineteen so reported for 1974. Some apparent changes in practice have occurred. Maricopa County (Arizona) formerly used a 3-year sales occurrence period, now finds 1 year sufficient. Fort Worth (Texas) short- ened the period from 2 years to 6 months. Detroit (Michigan) went the other way, changing from 1 year to 18 months. So did Arlington County (Virginia), which lengthened the sales period from 1 year to 3 years. Among areas for which ratios are derived, neighborhoods are apparently most important, according to the showing in table 11. Thirty-one jurisdictions in 18 States produce neighborhood assessment ratios, almost equal to the 32 jurisdictions so report- ing for 1974. Governmental units are also important. Studies in 25 places contain "entire area" ratios, and similarly there are municipal or township ratios in 25 places. Eighteen jurisdictions produce separate "suburban" ratios. Property characteristics still command considerable attention in local assessment ratio studies. Eighteen localities in 13 States calculate an assessment ratio for each major property type as classified in the local appraisal manual. Similarly, structure age is a criterion in 16 jurisdictions. Ratios for each of specified value ranges are available in 21 places. As in the survey 5 years ago, single-family residential ratios are most common, as table 12 indicates. Thirty-four local gov- ernments in 21 States now produce them. The count is 12 less than those doing so for 1974, but the earlier survey involved the 11 jurisdictions in California where ratio studies as such no longer occur. Present findings also indicate a decrease in the number of places calculating commercial, industrial, and agricul- tural ratios from 42, 39, and 22 localities for 1974, to 37, 33, and 20, respectively, for 1979. Thirty-two jurisdictions pro- duced vacant land ratios in both years. Characteristics and methods Local assessment ratio studies depend primarily on sales, as data in table 13 make evident. Of the 51 counties and cities responding to the question, 42 use sales exclusively, and the other 9 supplement them with appraisals. Appraisals for local studies are likely to be concentrated largely on commercial, industrial, special purpose, and apartment properties with any single-family residence appraisals ordered only in distinctive cir- cumstances. Any appraisals that do occur will incorporate use of all market information available. They will in fact amount to reassessments. In most instances they will be the work of the same specialists who supply the value estimates which are the basis for the original assessed values. INTRODUCTION 15 Five years ago the situation was much the same. All of 54 localities reporting used sales, 40 of them exclusively. As might be expected, procedural changes have occurred in some places. In the survey 5 years ago, for example, Detroit reported initial use of the entire sales universe, plus supplemental use of apprai- sals. According to the response for the present survey, however, Detroit now relies only on a sample of sales, without resort to appraisals. Twenty-nine of 51 jurisdictions responding include all sales initially. In the 1974 survey 36 of 54 localities so reported. The number of places limiting sales data to a sample increased during the period, from 18 to 21. Pierce County in Washington varies procedures regarding sales selection, depending on needs and resources. The latter county and others in Washington illustrate the frequent dual stance of local jurisdictions. Even as they conduct assessment ratio studies for their own purposes, local governments often perform the sales data assembly job for the State studies. or to a neighborhood, or to particular kinds of property in either. Thus, measures of central tendency and dispersion indi- cators attract priority interest as aims of statistical calculations. A summary of statistical measures derived for 1974 and 1979 is shown in table G. Table G. Statistical Measures Derived, by Numbers of Local Jurisdictions: 1974 and 1979 Item 1974 1979 Jurisdictions responding 55 41 33 29 17 8 2 11 4 25 51 40 30 Ratio of aggregate amounts Coefficient of intra-area dispersion : From median ratio only From mean ratio only 32 12 6 4 Coefficient of interarea dispersion Price related differential 17 8 ?fi In the City of Wichita Falls, Texas, a computerized inte- grated municipal information system, introduced in 1974 in accordance with a jointly financed city-Federal cooperative agreement, provides not only appraisal estimates conditioning many of the assessor's initial assessments, but also encompasses an ongoing assessment ratio program, with emphasis on intra- neighborhood uniformity. The system, called PROVES (Prop- erty Valuation and Equalization System), has a data base that includes 100 items of information for each parcel. PROVES develops two appraisal estimates for each property, one a com- puter calculated cost indication, the other a computer-assisted market comparison indication. The assessment specialist arrives at an assessed value after comparing the two, with visual inspec- tions an integral part of the process. Sales enter the data base constantly; resultant assessment/sales ratios reveal the targets for reappraisal attention within a 3-year cycle that assures re- curring review of every parcel. Sales price verification occurs by way of personal interview and telephone, methods also used in at least 17 of the other local jurisdictions responding to this survey, as table 13 indi- cates. Screening of sales can occur at various times during enu- meration, or as a consequence of verifying price, or during sta- tistical processing. Most localities screen sales during the latter two phases. Transfer tax documentation furnishes one means through which verification can take place. Statistical measures derived "What is the actual value level and how uniform is it?" That is the central question assessors seek to answer in conducting local assessment ratio studies, since knowing what prevails is a necessary prerequisite to assessment monitoring and corrective action. The actual level involved may refer to the entire county, While it is somewhat surprising that coefficients of dispersion receive relatively little mention in local responses for this sur- vey, a preoccupation with uniformity is evident in that almost half of the jurisdictions reporting calculate a standard deviation. This may seem to call into question the presumed consensus that assessment ratios are not normally distributed. It is noted, however, that 22 localities did report the derivation of the coefficient of intra-area dispersion. This number indicated in- creased use of the measure in 1979, since 11 of the 27 reported derivations for 1974 referred to California jurisdictions not now responding. Seventeen local places reported the derivation, in 1979, of a coefficient of interarea dispersion. This measure is the quotient resulting from dividing the average deviation from the median (or mean), among "area" ratios, by that median (or mean). "Areas" in the local jurisdiction context would refer to neighborhoods, subdivisions, census tracts, or similar spatial groupings. Purposes and implementation Specifics associated with the essential intra-area uniformity aims of local ratio studies are contained in table 16. Assessment ratio studies provide the basic findings necessary for decisions about where to allocate reappraisal resources, and in what sequence. They can also condition conclusions involved in the resolution of taxpayer appeals, especially during the informal preliminary phases, before administrative agency and court in- volvement take place. A summary of results for 1974 and 1979, bearing on purpose and implementation of local assessment ratio studies, is con- tained in table H. 16 INTRODUCTION Table H. Purposes and Implementation of Local Assessment Ratio Studies, by Number of Reporting Jurisdictions: 1974 and 1979 Item 1974 1979 Purpose- Equalization of assessed values within county, or other unit . . . 47(9) 41 Accomplishment of reappraisal objectives- Selection of targets: 46(10) 36(9) 33 By use category 28 Evaluation of reappraisal 40(11) 26 Possibility for use in taxpayer appeals 17(2) 21 Implementation: Findings may condition individual value changes An entire jurisdiction 35(6) 29 Individual use categories 39(9) 20 38(9) 24 Note: Numbers in parentheses refer to number of local California counties included with total shown for 1974. Ratio studies have since been discontinued in California as a result of Proposition 13. Of the above, California and the District of Columbia levy local transfer taxes only. The nation's capital added a 1 percent trans- fer tax on the seller to its existing 1 percent recordation tax on the buyer, effective August 1, 1980. Illinois has joined those authorizing local taxes within the last 5 years, now enabling Chicago to levy a tax of $5 per $5,000 of sales price, for trans- fers involving a price of $500 or more. As in the earlier study 5 years ago, Kansas is included though the State has no transfer tax. It still requires, however, the filing of a certificate of value along with any deed presented for recor- dation. Twenty-three of the States base the tax on full sales price. The twelve which use net sales price, i.e., the amount exclusive of that represented by mortgages, include South Carolina, reported in the full sales price group in the survey 5 years ago. In Puerto Rico revenue authorities receive a copy of the notarized deed of purchase that documents any transfer of realty where the consideration exceeds 525,000. It is likely that this requirement will be extended to all realty transfers in the near future. TRANSFER TAXES AND RECORDATION REQUIREMENTS History and coverage Until 1968 the Federal Government imposed a tax on the transfer of real property, at the rate of 55 cents per $500 (or fraction thereof) of the selling price involved. The equivalent percentage rate is 0.1 1 percent. Evidence of payment took the form of documentary stamps, affixed to the deed of conveyance at time of recordation. The stamps quickly became a source of sales data for local assessors and State taxation officials alike. It was nevertheless recognized early that verification of sales prices was definitely in order. One reason was the common practice of affixing more stamps than necessary, precisely to mislead the inquisitive. It was also a fact, in some circumstances, that stamps were affixed after recording. In other situations the tax was ignored and penalties risked. The first State transfer tax was imposed in 1922 by Virginia, with South Carolina following the next year and Florida in 1931. Alabama, Maryland, Tennessee, and Washington passed transfer taxes prior to 1940. Transfer taxes now exist in 35 States, and there is in addition a $2 transfer fee in Arizona, as detailed in table 17. Local realty transfer taxes, listed in table 18, are authorized in 12 States, as follows: California Maryland Delaware New York District of Columbia Ohio South Carolina Virginia Washington Illinois Pennsylvania West Virginia Rates and revenue It is a common practice to refer to rates of transfer taxes as number of cents of tax for each group of dollars of sales price. In terms of percentage equivalents, the taxes range from 0.01 percent in Colorado to 2 percent in Delaware, as table I indi- cates. The rates in table I do not include the $2 fee in Arizona. Reference to table 18 reveals that rates for local transfer taxes fall within the middle parts of that same range. Among State taxes there have been at least six substantive changes since the survey for 1974, five of them rate increases, in the following States: Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Rhode Island. In Florida the basic realty transfer tax increased from 30 cents to 40 cents per $100, effective October 1, 1979. On the same day, however, the repeal of an existing surtax of 55 cents per $500 became effective. Amounts of revenue from State transfer taxes go to State or local governments exclusively, or to State and local governments on a specified sharing basis, in accordance with prevailing sta- tutes. Collections from local transfer taxes accrue to the levying governments. Transfer tax revenue reflects in part the volume of real prop- erty transactions, and the rates involved. In Pennsylvania collec- tions from the State tax reached $93.9 million in 1979, up from $49.7 million 5 years earlier. The actual leader is Florida, where realty transfer tax revenue in 1979 approximated $95 million, about three-fifths of the total collected from a variety of docu- mentary levies. Virginia, Maryland, and Tennessee also report substantial collections in 1979, ranging from $31.5 million to $21.3 million, respectively. A summary of available data on State transfer tax revenue is contained in table J. INTRODUCTION 17 Table I. Rates, in Percent, State Realty Transfer Taxes 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.11 0.15 0.16 Colorado Hawaii Alabama Georgia Illinois Kentucky North Carolina Ohio South Dakota Washington Wisconsin Connecticut Iowa Maine Michigan Nebraska Nevada New York Oklahoma Arkansas 0.20 0.22 0.228 0.25 0.26 0.35 South Carolina Minnesota Rhode Island West Virginia Massachusetts New Hampshire Virginia Tennessee New Jersey 0.40 0.50 0.61 1.0 1.45 (1979) 2.0 Florida Vermont Maryland Pennsylvania Indiana (1.4 in 1980) Delaware Table J. State Tax Revenue, Realty Transfer Taxes: 1974 and 1979 (Thousands of dollars) State 1974 1979 State 1974 1979 Alabama . . . Arizona. . . . Arkansas . . . Colorado . . . Connecticut . Delaware . . . Florida .... Georgia. . . . Hawaii .... Idaho Illinois .... Indiana .... Iowa Kentucky . . Maine Maryland. . . Massachusetts Michigan . . . Minnesota . . Mississippi . . 642 1,201 1,502 ( 2 ) t 2 1 2,718 ( 2 > 7,955 '98,327 4,425 1,044 11,191 '157,780 5,705 1,857 3,612 8,104 1,464 s 1,857 3,077 5 1,161 890 14,695 7,802 ( 2 \ 27,614 12,415 4,730 10,808 Nebraska . . . . Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey . . . New Mexico . . New York . . . North Carolina. Ohio Oklahoma . . . Pennsylvania . . Rhode Island . . South Carolina. South Dakota . Tennessee. . . . Vermont . . . . Virginia Washington. . . West Virginia . . Wisconsin. . . . ; 17 1 1 1 829 678 1,053 ,785 ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ,873 722 503 ,091 ( 2 ) ,751 ,618 ,129 ,997 ,515 ,297 1,825 "1,872 3,412 18,247 11,365 4,524 93,913 1,401 '9,242 ( 2 ) 21,264 3,291 '31,515 7,468 3,027 2,649 Note: 1979 figures are preliminary. Sources: State Tax Collections in 1975, GF 75, No. 1, December 1975, table 10; and State Tax Collections in 1979, GF 79, No. 1, January 1980, table 9, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. — Represents zero or rounds to zero. 1 Revenue from Arizona $2 not separately available. 2 Revenue from transfer tax, locally collected and retained. Figures not available. 3 Amounts reported include transfer tax revenue from realty, stocks, and notes. Total for realty transfer taxes in 1979 approximates $95 million. 4 Amounts collected constitute a part of income tax revenue, and are not separately available. s Amounts reported include taxes on deeds, mortgages, and other documents. Separate revenue components not available. ' Information relative to 1980 indicates local collection and retention of revenue. 7 Includes an unidentifiable amount for land contracts. INTRODUCTION Implementation The best way to implement a realty transfer tax, in terms of usefulness to assessors, is to require the filing, at time of deed recordation, of an affidavit, or at minimum a declaration, reveal- ing the sales price. If that filing can be made a prerequisite to recordation or registration, the usefulness is further enhanced. Twenty-two States require an affidavit (sworn statement) or declaration as part of transfer tax administration, as shown in table 17. This includes the certificate of value required in Kansas, where there is no transfer tax. The count also includes Rhode Island, where a statement must be filed if the price is not otherwise shown. The same number of States (some in the first group also) provides for the affixing of documentary stamps to deeds of conveyance. Other States use an imprint of some kind on the deed as evidence of transfer tax compliance. Local governments may require affidavits or declarations also, as shown in table 18. New York City and places in Pennsyl- vania and Washington are examples. Sales price information contained in transfer tax documenta- tion is usually made available promptly to assessors, often ac- cording to specific statutory provision. Such data constitute an integral part of the empirical base for local and State assess- ment ratio studies. Enforcement States commonly exempt certain types of transfers (e.g., those between relatives, or between exempt institutions) from transfer taxes. For those subject to taxes, however, penalties can be of the type likely to command attention, as tables 17 and 18 indicate. Where sworn statements are involved, penalties for perjury are possible. Substantial fines, and even imprisonment, can result. In Maine the fine can reach $5,000, and in Massachusetts im- prisonment can be for as long as 1 year. The basic purpose of transfer taxes, however, is achievement of a dual goal, revenue yield and sales price disclosure. Of the two, the latter is obviously of singular utility in the improve- ment of property tax administration. STATE RATIO STUDIES Table 1. Number of Primary Assessing Jurisdictions, by Type of Government, by State: 1979 19 State Total Counties' Municipalities Townships Other State Total Counties' Municipalities Townships Other United States 13,439 67 25 14 75 58 63 169 3 1 67 159 1 44 1 ,404 1,008 118 105 120 64 499 1 351 1,510 97 82 2,473 67 11 14 75 "58 J 63 3 2 67 2 159 44 6 19 99 105 ! 120 '64 87 82 1,829 14 20 '1 19 22 39 265 10 9,133 '149 '1,385 1,008 '476 '312 1 ,245 4 s l 1 •l 418 1 93 17 234 567 32 983 100 1,760 88 77 36 67 39 46 70 95 254 29 249 136 39 55 1 ,826 23 91 93 17 32 100 29 88 77 36 ! 67 46 '64 ! 95 29 3 95 39 55 1 23 "1 13 335 '62 371 '8 6 9 "41 593 326 3 221 232 '919 1,360 '31 '237 '1 ,232 Nebraska Nevada Alaska " Arkansas District of Columbia... Florida Geor ia H a South Carolina " Virginia y Total for Louisiana includes Orleans - Represents zero or rounds to zero. 'includes boroughs in Alaska (3 of which include home rule cities of Anchorage, Juneau and Sitka) and parishes in Louis Parish, where the 7 district assessors comprise a board of assessors with one of their number elected as board president. 2 Each respective State total affected includes the following city-counties or city-county consolidations: San Francisco, California; Denver, Colorado; Jacksonvi 1 le- Duval, Florida; Columbus-Muscogee, Georgia; Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky; Baton Rouge-East Baton Rouge and New Orleans-Orleans, Louisiana; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Nashville-Davidson, Tennessee. 'Total shown consists of towns for Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. Total shown for Maine consists of 429 towns and 47 plantations. 'Each respective State total affected includes the following cities performing county type functions: Washington, D.C.; St. Louis, Mo.; New York City; 8 cities in Rhode Island: and 41 "independent cities" in Virginia. 5 The State is currently responsible for assessment administration in Hawaii. Effective July 1, 1981 each of 4 counties will assume responsibility for assessment administration. The 5th county, Kalawao, which is used as a treatment center for those afflicted with Hansen's disease, remains a State responsibility. See text. 'Includes Cook County, headed by an elected county assessor (see also footnote 7); St. Clair County, headed by an elected 5-person board of assessors, and 17 'There are elected township assessors in the 83 counties having township government. This category formerly included also 22 elected township assessors in St. Clair County who had initial assessing responsibility for personal property only, with realty assessing the responsibility of the board of assessors. Personal property, however, is now exempt in Illinois (effective January 1, 1979). There are 30 elected township assessors in Cook County who, now like those in St. Clair County, have no "explicit" assessing functions. Finally, there are 8 inactive townships within the city of Chicago. "In Maryland, local assessors and their clerical staffs became employees of the State on July 1, 1974 and July 1, 1975, respectively. In Montana county assessors became agents of the State Department of Revenue, effective July 1, 1973. Each State is considered a primary assessing jurisdiction for the summation contained in this table; this treatment varies from previous reports where the counties and Baltimore city were considered the primary assessing jurisdictions. 'Totals for South Dakota do not include 2 county areas (Shannon and Todd) that have no organized county government. These county areas depend on the assessors in Fall River and Tripp Counties, respectively, for their assessment administration. Washabaugh County was consolidated with Jackson County effective January 1, 1979. "In addition to 254 primary assessing jurisdictions (counties), Texas has in 1979 at least 2,388 overlapping assessing (and taxing) jurisdictions as follows: 18 road districts, 800 cities, 1,073 independent school districts, 43 junior college districts, 77 hospital districts and 377 other special districts. Information from Taxing Jurisdictions of Texas, Market Values, Assessed Valuations, Basis of Assessment and Tax Rates - 1979 , Texas municipal report, special report No. 131, Municipal Advisory Council of Texas, Austin, March 20, 1980. Each of overlapping jurisdictions normally has its own assessor. Often, however, the city assessor also (by contract) assesses for the overlapping school district, and/or for some other unit. The reverse also occurs. A 3rd less frequent possibility is that the county assessor will also (by contract) act as the assessor for a school district or other unit. Though the exact number is not known, it is unlikely that the total number of individual assessors in Texas would exceed 2,500. Whatever the number, it will decrease when the 1979 legislation becomes fully implemented on January 1, 1982, barring amendment before that. A central provision is creation of an appraisal district in each county coterminous with it, headed by a chief appraiser. 20 STATE AND LOCAL RATIO STUDIES Table 2. Scope of State Ratio Studies Usual frequency of study' Otherwi available public or (thousands of dollars) Arkan Calif Color Conne Flori Georg Hawai Kentucky. Louisiana North Dakota Rhode Islan South Carol South Dakot Wi 1970 1979 1979 1979 1977 1976 1980 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1974 1978 1979 1979 1978 1978 1978 1980 1979 1978 1979 1979 1979 1978 ( 8 ) 1978 1979 1977 1978 1979 1978 1979 1979 1979 1979 2 years 3 years 1 year M year 6 months 1 year 1 year 1 year 1 year 1 year 1 year 1 year 1 year 1 yeai 13 months 3 months 1 year 1 year nths 30 months 3 years 5 years 1 year 3 years 1 year 1 year 1 year 1 ye 1 Ye 5 yea 1 yea J year 1 yea months 1 year months 1 year '1 year NA Not available. 'A=Annual B=Biennial C=Semiannual D=Thrice per year E=Quadrennia 1 ly C=Every 2 Sales prices or appraisal estimates, as elsewhere indicated in this report. ! P=Valuation date preceding sale F=Valuation date following sale. 'Ratio studies as such have been discontinued since implementation of Proposition 13. As formei Statewide and county ratios were published, ratios by property use category were avai lable, but not "ratios of conformity" to measure conformance with existing law. 'Annual studies use unverified sales, quadrennial studies use verified sales and appraisals. R< 6 A ratio study may be conducted at time of reassessment. State Law requires a reassessment evei 'State uses only appraisals, no sales. In 1978 study State used appraisals as of July 1, 1976. "Updated annually. '1977 most recent year for all county coverage (88 counties). For 1978 coverage extended to 47 '°1979: Final study. 1980: Preliminary study. "In addition to State costs shown, counties incurred costs of $710,000. ''Length of sales period depends on volume of sales, with respect to each county. Applicable vi time two months. ''One year sales period plus three year history file. (") part Obta Obta ly do publi .e, they wet ;hed. In 19 Obta Obta D, State is be (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) 300 160 (NA) (NA) 250 (NA) 490 626 (NA) 6,000 (NA) 462 120 1 '140 847 (NA) (NA) 300 (NA) 750 1 year (NA) months (NA) (NA) 1 year 1 year 1 year 1 year 1 year 1 year (NA) (NA) (NA) 7 months 6 months 1 year 9 months 26 months 1 year 5 years 1 year 7 months 1 year 16 months 6 months 2 years (NA) 1 Year 1 year 21 months 1 year (NA) (NA) 1 year 10 months 1 year 1 year only, g studi ot quadrennial study are published. ;; for 1979 to 23 cou STATE RATIO STUDIES Table 3. Jurisdictional Classifications for Which State Agencies Derive Ratios, by Status of Ratio and by State 21 State State Counties Munici- palities School districts Town- ships' State State Counties Munici- palities School districts Town- ships' OF OF OF OF ( J ) ' ( 3 ) ( 3 ) UC OF OF OF "OF ( s ) ( 3 ) OF UC OF ( 3 ) ( 3 ) (') OF OF ( 3 ) OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF ( ! ) OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF ( J ) OF OF OF UC OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF ( J ) ( 3 ) OF ( 3 ) ( 3 ) < ! ) OF OF OF ( 3 ) OF OF OF OF ( 3 ) OF ( 3 ) ( 3 ) UC OF UC OF ( 3 ) OF OF ( 3 ) ( 3 ) OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF (') OF OF OF OF UC OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF s OF OF OF OF OF OF OF Colorado OF 1 ii Id h Rhode Island South Carolina OF Kentucky • 1 y h 8 ta OF Explanation of codes used is as follows: OF (Officially found) - Refers to ratios computed to satisfy prescribed requirements asso purpose not confined to internal analysis. In certain instances the computation of such general statutory directive. UC (Unofficially calculated) - Refers to ratios calculated as an aid to internal analysis ment administration, and/or within the local assessing jurisdictions affected. ed with publics ithin the Sta istribution fo Jtory provisio - Indicates no ratio derived. 'Designation "township" refers to towns in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, "Ratio studies as such have been discontinued since implementation of Proposition 13. As formerly done, only Available data do not rule out possible applicability, at least for unofficial calculation. ''Statewide ratios for nonfarm property only. 5 "Independent" cities only. Table 4. Area Locations for Which State Agencies Derive Ratios, by Status of Ratio and by State AlE bam Al! ska An zon Arkans Ca ifo Co) ora t 1 ) f 1 ) ( 2 ) (*) t 1 ) Nevada New Jersey North Dako South Dakota Mai Explanation of codes used in copy is a; OF (Officially found) - Refers to r; purpose not confined to internal anj general statutory directive. UC (Unofficially calculated) - Refei administration, and/or within the lc tios computed to satisfy prescribed requir lysis. In certain instances the computati s calculated a ing jurisdicti iated with publicatio atios is in complianc ithin the State (') (') (M > with a spec :y having re! (') (') I 1 ) I 1 ) (') (M id distributi statutory pro ponsibili ties affecting local (M C 1 ) (*) affected. - Indicates no ratio derived. 'Available data do not rule out possible applicability, at least for unoffi 2 In Alaska, "neighborhoods" have been designated as "service areas." In Hawai uivalent to neighborhoods, or groups thereof. 3 Ratio studies for city neighborhoods in future plans. 4 Ratio studies as such have been discontinued since implementation of Proposit Specially authorized when deemed necessary. 1 calculations. 1, subjurisdicti 22 STATE AND LOCAL RATIO STUDIES Table 5. Property Use Categories for Which State Agencies Derive Ratios, by Status of Ratio and by State Florida . Georgia. Idaho. . . Vermont Virginia Washington. . West Virgini Wisconsin . . . All type of realty treated a a single group Residential Uty, LI us itegor- Californi Colorado. 1 al-urban periphery) ( 4 ) ( 4 ) ( 4 ) ( 4 ) Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Recreational property Montana . . Nebraska . Nevada . . . C) c) in ( 8 ) - (') ( 8 ) New Mexico . . New York North Dakota ( 10) Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania . Rhode Island. (") ( 6 ) South Carol i South Dakota Tennessee. . . Texas Utah (12) '} C 2 ) OF (Officially found) - Refers to ratios c purpose not confined to internal analysis, general statutory directive. UC (Unofficially calculated) - Refers to r administration, and/or within the local as s calcult ing juris ribed requir le computati :ted. suits, an a specific agency having respon id distribution for statutory provision Ibilities affecting local unofficial calculati n of Proposition 13. only. - Indicates no ratio derived. 'Available data do not rule out possible applicability, at least 2 Katio studies as such have been discontinued since the implement 3 "A11 Realty" as a single group unofficially calculated for downs 'Officially found ratios for Cook County. '"Commercial and industrial" combined for single ratio. ""Multifamlly, commercial and Industrial" combined for single ratio. 'in Montana agricultural land is assessed on a basis other than market val "Calculation of ratios by use category for each county, subject to the nature and volume pallty, I.e., rural-urban, subdivided lots, or parcels. B In New Jersey "single family residence" category can Include structures with up to 4 apa apartment units. """Vacant land" ratios unofficially calculated for residential and commercial categories. "Ratios for "single family" category likely to Include those for limited "mul tlf amlly" u 12 State classifies multlfamlly structures with 3 or more units as commercial. agricultural sales are not used lume of sales reported. Other r ilty refe :ategory o realty lc Include str itside a with 5 STATE RATIO STUDIES Table 6. Major Characteristics of State Ratio Studies 23 Alabama Alaska Arizona California... Colorado Connecticut:. . Florida' Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota.... Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey... New Mexico... New York North Dakota. Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania. Rhode Island. South Carolin South Dakota. Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Washington. .. West Virginia Wisconsin.... See footno t Coordina rd of Equa Department of Revenue Department of Revenue Servi Depar Depar Depar Board of Tax Commissioners Department of Revenue, Property Tax Division Department of Revenue, Division of Property Valua Department of Revenue, Research Division State Tax Commission Bureau of Taxation, Property Tax Division State Department of Assessments and Taxation Department of Revenue, Bureau of Local Assessment Tax Co ids and Department of Revenue, Local Cover Analysis Division State Tax Commission Department of Revenue, Property Valuation Division. Department of Revenue Depa Department of Treasury, Di Taxation and Revenue Depar Division of Equalization a Assessment Standard: n, Property Appraisal j roperty Tax Di State Tax Department Department of Tax Equalization Tax Commission, Ad Valorem Tax Division... Department of Revenue, Assessment and Appr State Tax Equalization Board ; Department of Community Affairs, Supervisor of Equalization State Tax Commission, Property Tax Division... Department of Revenue, Property Tax Division.. Division of Property Assessment State Property Tax Board State Tax Commission, Local Valuation Division Division of Property Taxation Department of Taxation, Property Tax Division. Department of Revenue, Property Tax Division.. State Tax Department, Local Government Relatio Division Department of Revenue, Assessment Practices Di al officials Count Town Prope Counl Count ty appraisers (State employees) en of town/city, city and Probate office Recording offic County recorder County clerks Town clerk Property appr Reported estimate, gross total, all transfers, entire period of study 1 12 2,488 (NA) 300,000 Coun ty re Coun ty re (X) Coun ty re Coun ty re Coun ty cl Cler k of rector of equali gisters of deeds unty clerk unty clerks unty regist 98,335 250,000 10,000 60 , 000 125,000 160,000 (NA) "40,000 80 , 000 60 , 000 47,700 205,644 (NA) (X) (NA) '467,884 20,000 150,000 s 322,253 19,000 42,500 '75,000 200,000 (NA) 30,000 15,000 (NA) 185,308 end of table. 24 STATE AND LOCAL RATIO STUDIES Table 6. Major Characteristics of State Ratio Studies— Continued Use of sale When price Transfer ta California. Maryland New Ham New Jer North Dakota. Rhode Island. South Carolin South Dakota. ee Verm< Virg ni a Wash ne ton. . . . West Vi rglnla. Wise in (") 21% All sales (NA) 11 150 (X) '") 70«t ay mm 1 Ji 22 253 82jt U31( 15,000) Inspectio No transf Inspectio affidavi 2 , Inspectio transfer ( 2 ) U45(49,300) U32(10,500) Inspectio of transfer tax data of transfer fee data 12 Yes No transfer tax - Inspection of real estate transf - State has tax on i ncome derived corporations fron sales of real U25(31,000) Inspection of real estate transf - Inspection of cert ificates of va it usable only if land 7 U61( 14, U39(28, verifiable on disci Inspection of certificates of real estate value No transfer tax Inspection of realty transfer certificates Inspection of real estate transfer statements Inspection of title company records by subpoena Inspecting specting ti , including company rec Data for 1980 preliminary not ye U45(3,000) Inspection of realty 1 (no transfer tax) Inspection of property - Inspection of recordat Explanation of codes used in copy i A - For types infrequently sold. B - Used to supplement sales. C - Used exclusively. should be used in any comparison of t have been discontinued since implemen "post audit" review was 393,467. months. This figure includes 143,120 gross number of sales in sample bef or '"The number following "If" Is the per percent) sales remained in the study Imately 27,385 (11 percent) sales rem (42 percent) sales remained In the st mainedin the study after screening, sent Initially by counties. Quantity sales remained In the study after scr i number of transfers (including sales) during e ■ansfers reported here with measurable sales, e. :atlon of Proposition 13. 'Data shown relate 'Supervisors of Assessment are State employ. NA 'IT re period involved, thus includes any subsequently discarded for any reason. EXTREME CAUTION those reported in table 9, Volume 2, 1977 Census of Governments. 'Ratio studies as such "in-depth" review conducted in 19 counties only. Total number of sales in 46 counties for a 'Three-year sales period. 'Five-year sales period. 'Apparent total of sales for 12 'Sample own in adja I., I. ■mpt from conveyance fees. 'Appraisals used only for commerc ia 1- industrial prope any are discarded. Any percentage shown is a percentage of total number of transfers occurring as shown in adjacent column on the left, entage of usable responses in relationship to the total number of questionnaires, which is shown In parentheses. "Approximately 8,171 (33 fter screening. "Number not available. ''Approximately 120,000 (75 percent) sales remained In the study after screening. "Approx- ined in the study after screening. "Approximately 9,785 (24 percent) sales remained in Che study after screening. "Approximately 33,000 dy after screening. "Cities of Manchester and Nashua were not included In mall canvass. "Approximately 94,215 (46 percent) sales re- "Approxlmately 6,079sales remained In the study after screening. "Includes any action by the county commissioners. "Questionnaires not available. "Approximately 27,500 (65 percent) sales remained in the study after screening. "Approximately 37,594 (50 percent) enlng. "Most recent ratio study apparently used a sample of 56,000 sales. STATE RATIO STUDIES Table 7. Categories of Sales or Other Transfers of Property Excluded From State Ratio Studies 25 Corporate connection relationship of/or between gr and/or grantee Nonprofit organization United States, total . Alabama Alaska Arizona California Colorado Connecticut Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky lauisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington ■est Virginia Wisconsin Yes Yes ( 4 ) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ( 3 ) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ( 4 ) Yes ( 4 ) Yes Yes Yes Yes ( 3 ) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ( 4 ) Yes Yes Yes ( 4 ) Yes Yes Yes Yes ( 3 ) Yes Yes ( 4 ) Yes ( 4 ) ( 4 ) Yes Yes Yes Yes ( 4 ) Yes ( 4 ) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ( 4 ) ( 4 ) Yes Yes Yes Yes ( 4 ) ( 4 ) 1 Yes Yes Yes As Note: In some instances, responses to 1979 questi iessment , Special Studies No. 72, August 1975. exhibit substantial va 3tudi subsidiary, a corporati - Indicates transactions are not necessarily excluded from rati 1 Transfers between corporate affiliates, or between a corporati ownership. transfers to correct defects in title, create Joint tenancy, reorganize or reconvey property. 3 Ratio studies as such have been discontinued since the implementation of Proposition 13. When studi appraisals, no sales. 4 State uses only appraisals in conducting ratio studies. nd Local Rat nd Property stockholders, performed prior to Proposition 13 Califo 26 Georgia . Hawaii. . Idaho. . . Illinois Indiana. Kentucky. Louisiana Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey . . . New Mexico . . . New York North Dakota. Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania . Rhode Island. South Carolin South Dakota. Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington. . . West Virginia Wisconsin. . . . STATE AND LOCAL RATIO STUDIES Table 8. Statistical Measures Derived for State Ratio Studies Yes Yes Yes Medi Medi Media Media Median (') Median Median Median Mean Media Yes Yes Yes Yes ( 3 ) C) ( 5 ) ( s ) ( 7 ) ; 9 ) - Indicates no measure of the type 'Data for Arkansas presented as sh aggregate amounts," also presented as sponses presented refer to California Pearson skewness coefficien ified is derived. i State and Local Ratio Studies and Property Assessment , Spec: i in same publication. 'Ratio studies as such have been d: tice when ratio studies were last performed. 'Additional r , simple and weighted standard quartile dispersion, geometric mean, standard error of mean, measures derived are average deviation, coefficient of varia Pearson skewness coefficient, and coefficient of kurtosis. ent of va rors, coeff 'Additional measures derived a Dn , range, and standard error of me 'State derives coefficients of int Histog qua al Stud ies No. 72 , 1975. Data or Ne w York a to "ra scontin jed since the impl m nta ion c f P opos tion 13 easures derived « re coeff c ent of cc rre atio , relat s are a Lso used. "Add t ona meas ure der ved are tiles o le and tht ee, deci e on! and nine 'Addit 'Addit Lon 1 meas ures der V d a e coe l f i Lent of vari disper Lo from both the dial and 'Addit ..,-! I I of va coefficient of ske and anda Colorado. . . . Connecticut . Florida Georgi Hawaii Idaho, lllino Montana. Nebraska Nevada New Hampshi New Mexico. New York . . . North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Rhode Island. South Carolin South Dakota. Utah Vermont . Virginia Washington West Virgi Wisconsin. STATE RATIO STUDIES Table 9. Use of Ratio Findings Contained in State Ratio Studies 27 A, I-E, I-S ally ned by A, A -E Local Local I-E A, A, -E -E Local Local Local A, t-E, I-S Local A Local ** -E, I-S ( 2 ) A, -S State and loc I-S {") A Local A, -S Local A, -E Local A, -E, I-S Local A Local A, -E, I-S Local A, -E Local A, -E, I-S Local ( towns ) A (») A ) -E Local ( towns ) A, -S State and loc A, -E, I-S Local A Local A, -E, I-S Local 6 A , -E Local A, -E State and loc A, -S Local ( towns J A, I-S Local A, I-E, I-S State and 1 A, I-E Local A, I-E, I-S State and 1 A, I-E, I-S Local State and 10 Local Local (towns) State and local State and local Local Local 7 Local Local (towns) Local (counties i independent cities) State and lo State and lo State and lo ( 2 ) Yes ( 2 ) ( 2 ) Yes ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ent of State (*) Health grants ( 2 ) ( 2 ) Grants ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) Polic Highw ( 2 ) Local gove ( 2 ) ( 2 ) Forest land and flood control aid ( 2 ) ( 2 ) Revenue sharing ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) Certa ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) Provide a comparabl for rate and debt limitations ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) s adjustme programs ( 2 ) ( 2 ) county revenue components t 2 ) Determination for tax and debt limits ( 2 ) ( 2 ) Determine salary levels of county officials Determining taxing and bonding power of govern- ment units. To correct value allocations between land and building compon- ents. Identifying market trends . ( 2 ) Hi - ' !•{ ( 2 ) < 2 ) n with the sment of public ser- property levy of utility value Accomplishment of reappraisal programs Selecting reappraisal targets by Evaluating reappraisal sffective- ( 2 ) ategory ategory atego ategory ( 2 ) Area Area, use category Area, use category Area, use category Use category ategory ategory ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) Yes ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) Yes ( 2 ) ( 2 ) Possi- bility ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ally < 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) Yes ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) Unofficially ( 2 ) Explanation of codes used in copy is as follows: A - Ratio findings used to adjust jurisdiction interjurisdictional equalization purpose. I-E - Ratio findings used Co change individual I-S - Ratio findings used to change individual category or neighborhood. on level, to produce an equali for apportioning State "Area" may include entire juris Examples include single- family identiaL, por ed values wheneve ed values wheneve thereof. "Use category" refers to purpose for which property al, industrial, and agricultural. or in particula Available data from this survey have been compared 1980. 'Relevance, if any, not indicated by data obt sented herein pertain to last ratio study completed. State, becomes a county function July 1, 1981. 8 Th( with data froi ! Ra n School Finances at a Fifth Glance, Educat tinued ion C ained. io studies as such have been discon since ^Formerly used in school aid apportionment formula, local eLected assessors, nevertheless, are State employe .mmision of the States, Denver, the implementation of Proposit 7 Among independent school di id, or for slmila ances, can be used. Colorado, June ion 13. Data pre- performed by the 28 STATE AND LOCAL RATIO STUDIES Table 10. Scope of Ratio Studies Conducted by Selected Local Jurisdictions Usual frequency of study Sales or other market value indi- cators oc- curred during period shown Availability af results foi Usual frequency of study Sales or other market value indi- cators oc- curred during period she Availability f results for public use Alabama: Jefferson County.. Montgomery County. Maricopa County. California 1 Connecticut : Hartford city. Delaware: Kent County Dover city District of Columbia: Washington city Florida: Dade County Jacksonville- Duval County Georgia: Chatham County Ful ton County Illinois: Winnebago County... Bloomington city. . . Ft. Madison city. . . Kansas : Sedgwick County. . . Michigan: Detroit city Flint city Grand Rapids city. Minnesota: Hennepin County. .. Ramsey County St. Louis County. . Minneapolis city. . Jackson County. . . . Kansas City 'Ratio studies as 2 0r on request. 3 As necessary for 4 As recorded thro s First six months Annually Annually Annually (') Prior to i nd during When requested Annually Annu ally Annu ally Annu ally Annually Annually Annu ally Annu ally Cont inuing basi ■ Annu ally/qi ally arte rly Annu ally Semi annually Annu ally Annu ally Semi annual y* Annu ally Annually 1 ye 1 ye 1 ye 1 yea 1 yea 1 yea 1 ye 2 ye 1 yea 1 yea 18 months 2-1/2 yea 1 year 1 year 2 year 2 year 1 year 1 year Not obtainable Obtainable Not obtainable Nebraska : Douglas County. New York: New York City. North Carolina: Mecklenburg County. Franklin County. Lucas County. . . . Mahoning County. Stark County Not obtainable Obtainable Oregon: Lane County Multnomah County. Pennsylvania: Allegheny County. Delaware County... Montgomery County. South Dakota: Minnehaha County. Not obtainable Obtainable Obtainable Obtainable Not obtainable Not obtainable Obtainable Not Obtainable Obtainable Obtainable Jefferson County. Ft. Worth city. . . Wichita Falls cit Virginia: Arlington County. Fairfax County. . . Hampton city Norfolk city Portsmouth city. . Washington: King County Pierce County. . . . Spokane County... Yakima County Wisconsin: Madison city Milwaukee city . . . uch have been discontinued si the implementation of Proposition 13. Annually Annually Annually Tri nnially nnlally nnially Annu ally Annu any Annu ally Annu ally Annu ally Annu ally Annu ally Trie anially; y each ye Annual ly Annually Annually Semiannually Annual Ly C) Annual ly Annually Annually Annually 3 year 1 year 1 year 1 year 1 year 8 months ( 4 ) 1 year 8 months Obtainable Obtainable 3 years Obtainable 2 years Obtainable 1 year Inserted or tax bill 3 years Inserted oi tax bill 1 year Obtainable 1 year Obtainable 1-1/2 years Inserted o tax bill 1 year Not obtain hi 1 year Not obtain bl 3 years Obtainable 4 years Obtainable 6 months Not obtain ibl 2 years Obtainable llbt able Obtainable Obtainable Obtainable Obtainable Obtainable Obtainable Obtainable ighout the year; period of sales period may be ed is ately than four years, but length depends preliminary findings. INTRA-AREA CLASSIFICATIONS Table 11. Intra-Area Classifications for Which Selected Local Jurisdictions Derive Ratios, by Jurisdiction 29 Neighborhoods Alabama: Jefferson County Montgomery County Arizona: Maricopa County California Connecticut: Hartford city Delaware: Dower city District of Columbia: Washington city Florida: Dade County Jacksonwille-Duval County Chatham County Fulton County Illinois: Bloomington city Iowa: Fort Madison city Kansas: Sedgwick County Michigan: Detroit city Flint city Grand Rapids city Minnesota: Hennepin County Ramsey County St. Louis County Minneapolis city Missouri: Jackson County Kansas City Nebraska: Douglas County New York: New York City North Carolina: Mecklenburg County Ohio: Franklin County Lucas County Mahoning County Stark County Oregon: Lane County Multnomah County Pennsylvania: Allegheny County Delaware County Montgomery County South Dakota: Minnehaha County See footnotes at end of tabl Yes ( 2 ) ( 3 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) (') Yes (') Appraisal manual type General county level only Land use codes Appraisal manual type Appraisal manual types; value ranges; grade of and time of sale Entire jurisdiction only Appraisal manual types; structur value ranges; story height; ext wall Appraisal manual types; structur value ranges; geographic locati Property type Appraisal manual types; structur value ranges; location; dwetlin Value ranges Structure age; value ranges; geo ical areas Appraisal manual types; va Appraisal manual types; struc value ranges Appraisal manual types; building cla fications Appraisal manual types; value range; property zone; year appraised; geo- graphic area 30 STATE AND LOCAL RATIO STUDIES Table 11. Intra-Area Classifications for Which Selected Local Jurisdictions Derive Ratios, by Jurisdiction-Continued Location Governmental units Urban Suburban Rural Municipalities or townships School districts Entire urban Neighborhoods or assessing districts Texas: (') ( 2 ) Yes (' ) Yes (M (' ) ( ' ) (') s Yes (' ) (' ) (' ) Yes < ' ) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes s Yes ( ! ) (') Yes Yes (' ) (M Yes (') Yes (') (') < 2 ) (') s Yes < 2 ) ( 2 ) (' ) (') (') Yes (') (') (') No No (') s Yes ( 2 > ( 2 > (' ) (' ) Yes Yes Appraisal manual types; structure age; Appraisal manual types; struccure age 1 ( 2 ) j ( 2 ) (') j ( 2 ) (') ( 2 ) Yes ] ( 2 ) (') \ ( 2 ) (•) (») Appraisal manual types; structure age; Land use; zoning; geographic areas Appraisal manual types Washington: Value ranges Appraisal manual types; structure age; Countywide ratio only ( 2 ) (') (') Yes ( 2 ) (') (') (' ) Value ranges Appraisal manual types; structure age 'Available data do not rule out possible a 'Available data indicate no applicability. 'Ratio studies as such have been discontin 'Charlotte only. 'Ratios calculated for any named category, USE CATEGORIES Table 12. Property Use Categories for Which Selected Local Jurisdictions Derive Ratios, by Jurisdiction 31 single group Single- family Alabama: Jefferson County Montgomery County Arizona: Maricopa County California Connecticut: Hartford city Delaware: Dover city District of Columbia: Washington city Florida: Dade County Jacksonville-Duval County. Chatham County Fulton County Illinois: Winnebago County Iowa: Fort Madison city Kansas: Sedgwick County Michigan: Detroit city Flint city Grand Rapids city Minnesota: Hennepin County Ramsey County St. Louis County Minneapolis city Missouri: . Jackson County Kansas City Nebraska: Douglas County New York: New York City North Carolina: Mecklenburg County Ohio: Franklin County Lucas County Mahoning County Stark County Oregon: Lane County Multnomah County Pennsylvania: Allegheny County Delaware County Montgomery County South Dakota: Minnehaha County Texas: Jefferson County Fort Worth city Wichita Falls city See footnotes at end of t Public utility, timbe (') Yes (') Yes (' ) (') (') (') Public utility, timbe Public utility, ti mineral rights (' ) Seasonal Public utility Public utility (') Homestead Public utility, mineral rights ( s ) Public utility, mineral rights Public utility, timber, mineral rights 32 STATE AND LOCAL RATIO STUDIES Table 12. Property Use Categories for Which Selected Local Jurisdictions Derive Ratios, by Jurisdiction— Continued Realty Jurisdiction All types single group Residential Commercial Industrial — ' Vacant land Other Personalty All Single- family Multi- family (') (') Yes Yes (') Yes s Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes s Yes (') Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (') (') s Yes ( ' ) 'Yes Yes (') Yes Yes Yes (') (') 4 Yes ( ' ) Yes Yes (M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 Yes (') Yes Yes (') Yes Yes Yes (') Yes 5 Yes (') (') Yes (' ) (') (' ) (' ) (') (') ! Yes (') Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (') 5 Yes (') Yes Yes (') (') (') (') (') (') (') (') (') Public utility, timber, mineral rights (.') (•') ( J ) ( ] ) ( ] ) Washington: ( ] ) (') ( 3 ) (') 'Available data do not ru 2 Ratio studies as such ha 'Available data indicate "In Mecklenburg County, t LOCAL RATIO STUDIES Table 13. Major Characteristics of Ratio Studies Conducted by Selected Local Jurisdictions 33 Use of sales data Sales included (before Alabama: Jefferson County.. Montgomery County. Maricopa County. California Delaware: Kent County. Dover city. . istrict of Columbi Washington city. . Florida: Dade County Jacksonville-Duval County.. Illinois: Winnebago County. Bloomington city. Kansas: Sedgwick County. Michigan: Detroit city Flint city Grand Rapids city. Minnesota: Hennepin County... Ramsey County St. Louis County.. Minneapolis city.. Mi Jackson County. Kansas City Nebraska: Douglas Co New York: New York City. North Carolina: Mecklenburg County. Franklin County. Lucas County Mahoning County. Stark County Lane County Multnomah County. Pennsylvania: Allegheny County. . County... ry County. Dela South Dakota: Minnehaha County. Jefferson County. Fort Worth city . . Wichita Falls cit Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale Sail Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale Sample Sample All Sample Sample Sample All Sample Sample Sample Sample All All All All Sample All All All All Sample All All P, Tr(S) T, Tr(S), multiple listing Tr(S) T, C T, Tr(S) P, Tr(S) P, T, Tr(S) P, T, TrIS ) , multiple li Tr(S) Tr(S) Tr(S) T, Tr(S) P, agents and broke Tr(L) P, T, Tr(L) Tr(L) Tr(L) il estate multiple li P, T, Tr(L) Tr(L) P, T (') P, T. See footnotes at end of table 34 STATE AND LOCAL RATIO STUDIES Table 13. Major Characteristics of Ratio Studies Conducted by Selected Local Jurisdictions— Continued Sales included (before screening) .-,-■ ingt on C Fa rfax Cou H 11 ipton No folk cit Po tsmo uth All All Sample All Spokane County. Yakima County.. Tr(L), Tr(S), inspe P, T, Tr(L), Tr(S) P, T, Tr(L), Tr(S), Tr(L), Tr(S) Tr(L), Tr(S) P, T, Tr(L) Tr(S) Tr(S), multiple ing deeds ncluding afflda Explanation of codes used in copy is a C - correspondence P - personal interview Q - questionnaire T - telephone Tr(L) - documentation, local trar Tr(S) - documentation, State trar sf sf 'Responses presented do not nece. 2 Ratio studies as such have been di 'Data on separate verification p ''Required by the present 1 percei August 1, 1980. oc ily rule out additional o continued since the imple 'deed recordati ion of P the buye lethods ■opositi SALES AND TRANSFER CATEGORIES Table 14. Categories of Sales or Other Transfers Excluded From Ratio Studies Conducted by Selected Local Jurisdictions 35 Specified status or relationship of, grantor and/or Nonprofit organizati Religious c charitable Alabama: Jefferson County.. Montgomery County. Maricopa County. California" Delaware: Kent County. istrict of Columbi Washington city. . Dade County Jacksonville-Duval County. Chatham County. Fulton County.. Kansas: Sedgwick County. Michigan: Detroit cit Flint city. Grand Rapids Hennepin County.. Ramsey County St. Louis County. Minneapolis city. Jackson County. Kansas City Nebraska: Douglas County. New York: New Yor'- City. Franklin County. Lucas County Mahoning County. Stark County Lane County Multnomah County. Pennsylvania: Allegheny County.. Delaware County. . . Montgomery County. South Dakota: Minnehaha County.. Jefferson Cou Wichita Falls ( 2 ) ( 2 ) Multiple property sale 'Inve pin Transfer subject to unknown mortgage o land contract balances; transfer of property physically changed after de- termination of assessed value but be- lle. Transfers involving: Splits 01 combi nations of property: auctions; pro- bate action; partially exempt prop- erty; trades; "old" land contracts; partially completed structures. ( 3 > ( s ) ( 3 ) Old contracts ( 3 ) ( 3 ) ( 3 ) ( 3 > ( 3 ) (') Any fer ( 3 ) Any rans fer app (') ( 3 ) ( 3 ) L; any "old" value is stated. See footnot 36 STATE AND LOCAL RATIO STUDIES Table 14. Categories of Sales or Other Transfers Excluded From Ratio Studies Conducted by Selected Local Jurisdictions— Continued Specified status or relationship of, or between, grantor and/or grantee Transfers of Foreclosure or other such legal Jurisdiction Relatives Corporate Nonprofit organization Miscellaneous categories' Unit of government Religious or charitable Other Ves Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes < ! ) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ( 2 ) Yes Yes (.') Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ( a ) Yes Yes (') Yes ( ! ) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes < ! ) Yes Yes Yes Any transfer including items other than real estate; any partial interest sale. Any transfer involving inheritance. Washington : Transfers of cemetery lots; contracts entered into prior to enactment of tax. Estate sales; partial interest sales; easements; transfers of forest land or other special use property; sales for less than $1,000; any sale of a prop- erty changed since appraisal. Specially assessed property Wisconsin: Trades; partial interest sales. 'Types of sfers specified in thi ther columns do not ily exhaust the ent of tr categorie "Ratio studies as < 5 0nly residential • 6 "Any" sales may be uch have been d ales are used, discarded as a fers of this type in the jurisdiction specified not apparent fro ince the implementation of Propos Liable in Califo of transfers excluded fr available data, ion 13. studies in the jurisdicti suit of verification procedur STATISTICAL MEASURES Table 15. Statistical Measures Derived From Ratio Studies by Local Jurisdictions 37 Jurisdiction Ratio of aggregate Coeffi of intr Coefficient interarea dispersion Frequency distributio Index of regressive (price related differential) Standard deviation Alabama: Jefferson County.. Montgomery County. Arizona: Maricopa County... Connecticut: Hartford city Delaware: Kent County Dover city District of Columbia: Washington city Florida: Dade County Jacksonville-Duval County. Georgia: Chatham County Fulton County C) Yes (') (*) (') ( l ) (*) Illinois: Winnebago County. Bloomlngton city. Median Median Sedgwick County... Michigan: Detroit city Flint city Grand Rapids city. Median Mean Mean Coefficient of deviati Confidence limits Minnesota : Hennepin County.. Ramsey County St. Louis County. Minneapolis city. Mis Jackson County. Kansas City Nebraska: Douglas County. New York: New York City. North Carolina: Mecklenburg County. Ohio: Franklin County. Lucas County. . . . Mahoning County. Stark County. . . . Yes Yes Average deviation Slope of trend Hi Oregon: Lane County Multnomah County. Median and Pennsylvania : Allegheny County Delaware County Montgomery County South Dakota: Minnehaha County Texas : Jefferson County Fort Worth city Wichita Falls city See footnotes at end of table. 38 STATE AND LOCAL RATIO STUDIES Table 15. Statistical Measures Derived From Ratio Studies by Local Jurisdictions— Continued Jurisdiction Mean ratio Median ratio Ratio of aggregate amounts Coefficient of Intra-area dispersion, from ratio indicated Coefficient of interarea dispersion Frequency distribution Index of regressive assessment (price related differential) Standard deviation Other Virginia: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Median Median and Median Median and Median Mean Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Washington: Wisconsin: Milwaukee city Available data indicate that this statistical ch have been discontinued in California since the lmple statistical measure is a very recent development. station of Proposition 13. LOCAL RATIO STUDIES Table 16. Purposes and Implementation of Ratio Studies Conducted by Selected Local Jurisdictions 39 values county, Evaluat jf reappr affective 3 f findings likely to conditi changes for individual Individual Individual ■ighborhoods Alabama: Jefferson County.. Montgomery County. Maricopa County. California Delaware: Kent County. District of Columbi Washington city.. Florida: Dade County Jacksonville-Duval County.. Chatham County. Fulton County.. Illinois: Winnebago County. Bloomington city. Fort Madi ity. Michigan: Detroit city Flint city Grand Rapids city. Mi Hennepin County.. Ramsey County.. . . St. Louis County. Minneapolis city. Jackson County. Nebraska: Douglas Co New York: New York City. North Carolina: Mecklenburg Cou Franklin County. Lucas County Mahoning County. Stark County Lane County Multnomah County. Pennsylvania: Allegheny County. . Delaware County... Montgomery County. South Dakota: Minnehaha County.. Jefferson County... Fort Worth city.... Wichita Falls city. at end of table 40 STATE AND LOCAL RATIO STUDIES Table 16. Purposes and Implementation of Ratio Studies Conducted by Selected Local Jurisdictions— Continued Purpose implemented Jurisdiction Equalization of assessed values within county, city, or other unit Accomplishment of reappraisal program objectives Possibility for use in taxpayer appeals 1 Use of findings likely to condition changes for individual assessed values in-- Selection of targets Evaluation of reappraisal effectiveness jurisdiction Individual categories Individual neighborhoods Other By area By use category jurisdictional groupings Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ( 2 ) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ( 2 ) (M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ( 2 ) ( 2 ) < ! ) Yes ( 2 ) ( 2 ) Yes Yes Yes Yes ( 2 ) < 2 ) Yes (') Yes ( 2 ) < 2 > Yes Yes Yes (M ( 2 ) ( 2 ) Yes ( 2 ) Yes ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) Yes (') Yes Yes Yes ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( ! ) ( 2 > < ! ) Yes ( a ) Yes Yes ( ! ) ( 2 ) Yes Yes ( ! ) ( ! ) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ( 2 ) ( 2 ) Yes Yes ( ! ) Washington: ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ot necessarily imply ability, if any, not studies as such have gs used for analysis nee by the courts, ed by available data, scontinued since the imple TRANSFER TAX CATEGORIES Table 17. State Transfer Taxes and Recordation Requirements 41 Colorado Connecticut . Florida. Georgia . Hawaii. . Illinois Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey. . . New York North Carolln Ohio Oklahoma Pennsylvania . Rhode Island. South Carolln South Dakota. See lo mortgage r other Yes (') Yes 50 cents per $500 $2.00 per document $1.10 per $1,000 3 1 cent per $100 4 55 cent per $500 3 2 percent 3 6 40 cents per $100 $1.00 per $1,000 or less, 10 cents per $100 over $1,000 3 5 cents per $100 3 fi 50 cents per $500 3 (') 55 cents per $500 8 (") 50 cents per $500 55 cents per $500 55 cents per $500 1/2 of 1 percent $1.14 per $500 3 $2.20 first $1,000, $1.10 per 500 over $1 , 000 55 cents per $500 55 cents per $500 3 25 cents per $100" $1 .75 per $500 3 12 50 cents per $500 $1.00 or 10 cents pe 100 whichever is larger 75 cents per $500 3 One percent $1.10 per $500 3 $1.00 per $500 50 cents per $500 (stamps, aal/, etc.) Stamps Imprinting on Not specified Stamps Not specified Seal imprint Stamps Stamps Stamps f) Recorded on de< Stamps Stamps Stamps Stamps Stamps Imprinting on < Stamps Imprinting on document Stamps Stamps Not specified Stamps Stamps Stamps Stamps Imprinting on None specified Misdemeanor $50 to $100 $50 to $500 , not less 10 days nor more tha 3 months $200 to $500 Not more than $500, n than 1 year Misdemeanor Misdemeanor $500 to $1,000 or 1 y Misdemeanor Misdemeanor $100 to $500 Misdemeanor Not more than $100, than 30 days than 6 months $500 to $1,000, not more than 1 year Misdemeanor Misdemeanor Misdemeanor Misdemeanor Misdemeanor Adjudged a disorderly per Misdemeanor Misdemeanor $100 to $1,000, not more than 6 months None specified Misdemeanor None specified $20 to $100 Misdemeanor Type of docum None specif led Affid ivlt None specif Led None specif Led Affid ivit Affid ivit sfer decla Affidavit Affidavit Certificate of valu Affidavit Declaration of valu None specified None specified None specified Certificate of real Real estate transfe Declaration of valu None specified AIll Of None specified None specified None specified None specified Affidavit of valu ( ».) Affidavit None specified ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) 2 J ( 2 ) ( 2 ) otes at end of table 42 STATE AND LOCAL RATIO STUDIES Table 17. State Transfer Taxes and Recordation Requirements— Continued Basis of tax or recordation requirement Rate Evidence of payment as shown (stamps, seal, etc.) Penalty for false statement of value, etc. (fine and/or incarceration as shown) Sales price display Total sales price Net sales price exclusive of mortgage or other liens Type of documentation required if any Appl ication State All fers All, with fied tions Yes IB Yes Yes Yes 17 Yes Yes $2.30 per $1,000 1/2 of 1 percent or $1 .00 whichever is greater 18 50 cents per $500 3 2 ° 50 cents per $500 ' $1.10 per $500 * 10 cents per $100 3 Not specified Not specified Not specified Stamps Stamps Amount paid on Penalty for perjury 10 to 25 percent of amount due, but not more than $1,000 None specified Misdemeanor Misdemeanor Not more than $1,000 or one year None specified Property transfer return None specified None specified Declaration of consideration or Real estate transfer return Yes West Virginia Yes 'Alabama also levies a mortgage tax of 15 cents per $100. 2 Relevance, if any, not indicated by data obtained, transfers under $100 are exempt, transfers under $500 are exempt. s This tax also applies to leases of more than 5 years. 'Minimum tax $1. 'Gross income tax on proceeds from sale of real estate. Rate was 1. "First $500 of sales price exempt. 9 Kansas has no transfer tax. Entries for that State refer to the mo '"Minnesota also levies a tax on mortgages of 15 cents per $100. "Minimum tax is $10 where consideration is $4,000 or less. "instruments creating leasehold interests for more than 99 years ar. citizens tax is reduced to 50 cents per $500. 13 New York also levies a mortgage tax of 50 cents per $100. '"Oklahoma also levies a mortgage recording tax of 10 cents per $100 15 If no consideration is shown, then a statement must be attached. ,6 South Carolina also levies a tax on liens of 4 cents per $100. "Tennessee also levies a mortgage tax of 10 cents per $100 on indeb "Virginia also levies a mortgage tax of 15 cents per $100. 2 °Data indicated applies to the realty transfer tax. Virginia also 1 of $10 million. in 1979 and 1.40 percent in 1980 but declin deeds. Also, if property is newly construe nually until phased out in 2007. sly occupied by blind, disable it exceeds $2,000. anges of land. Rt Krding tax of 15 a combination of holding per per $100 on which reduced ra apply for TRANSFER TAX CATEGORIES Table 18. Transfer Taxes and Recordation Requirements of Local Jurisdictions 43 .), fine and/or Calitorni Countie Cities. Delaware: Wilmington. Illinois: Chicago. Baltimor Howard.. Montgome Prince G All othe Baltimor New York: New York City. Pennsylvania: sales pr Net sales pr 55 cents per $500 Stamp 27.5 cents per $500 ! Stamp 1 percent Stamp 2 percent' Stamp Sale Sale Sale Sale jSale Sale $5 per $5,000* 1 perce Ik perc 1 perce (» ">) 1 perce ( 9 ) Ik percent Not to exceed 30 (")- attached to deed Not specified Numbered receipt Not specified None specified None specified None specified None specified None specified None specified None specified None specified Up to $1 ,000, up to 1 year st offense: Not ss than $50, not re than $300 None speci fied None speci fied None speci fied None speci fied None speci tied None speci fied No if ied Cities: Philadelphi Pittsburgh. South Carolina: Cities and coun Washington: Counties. Sales pr Sales pr 1 percent 1 percent 1/3 of State docume recording tax (her 5 cents per $100)' 55 cents per $500 Stamps Stamps Real property Real property Evidence of paym as provided by None specified None specified Affidavit if required by local ordinance Up to $1,000, up 1 year None specified Not more than $3,000 nor more than 30 days None specified None specified Note "Sale full amount of ented by 3f le 'Transfe ity tax then become ?wer dwelling units it of principal pla ansfe 1 mortgages, of one-half that of the than $100 are exempt. 2 Any city within a county levying the tax may impose a c a credit against the county tax. 'if document does not set forth actual consideration, tax is computed on the estimated full value. ''Rel icated by data obtained. 5 The District of Columbia also levies a "speculator's tax" on the transfer of residential property containing 4 or It has a sliding scale of rates, and applies if the property transferred was held for less than 3 years. Major exemptions to the tax are trans of residence, and transfer of property certified to be free of structural defects for 2 years. 6 The 2 percent rate includes 1 p he uyer, via a deed recordation tax (minimum tax $1), and, effective August 1, 1980, 1 percent on th xempt. "Tax is to be paid by grantee. 9 Local recordation taxes (additional to local transfer taxes sho arrett, Wicomico; $1.65 per $500 - Baltimore, Calvert, Caroline, Dorchester, Kent, Prince George's, Queen Anne ornery; $2.75 per $500 - Harford; $3.30 per $500 - Charles, St. Mary's; $3.50 per $500 - Anne Arundel. "No ideration is less than $25,000; tax is i of 1 percent where consideration ranges from $25,000 to $35,000; 1 pe roved property is 1 percent. No ta $20,000 to $35,000; 1 percent whe Transfers of less than $500 are n above) are as follows: $1.10 per $500 - Allegany, s, Worcester; $2.20 per $500 - Baltimore city, Mont- realty transfer tax on residential property where cc cent where consideration exceeds $35,000. Tax on un 11 other nonresidential improved property where consideration is less than $20,000; tax is k of 1 percent where considerat sideration exceeds $35,000. Tax is from 2*j to 6 percent on land assessed as agricultural; rate dependent on length of agr ultural classification. Transfers of real property rezoned for a more intensive use after July 1, 1971 are taxed at 6 percent. An additional real property recapture ax of $3.70 per $100 applies to the result, if any, of subtracting the assessed value and a flat $8,000 from 45 percent of the sales price. "Consideration must xceed $25,000. 1! As of 1978, 17 counties levy this tax. ' 3 When transfer is a gift, the tax is based on the estimated price real estate would bring in the open arket. "Affidavit required if documentation does not define consideration. " Applies to first recordation only. "At present 65 counties and 27 cities evy this tax. "At present all 39 counties levy this tax. "Rate of tax must be established annually. A credit for the amount of tax paid on the transfer of single-family residence is applicable to the tax due on subsequent transfer of the property within 9 months. APPENDIX A: LEGAL BASIS FOR ASSESSED VALUE OF REALTY, BY STATE: 1979 AND SUBSEQUENT PERIODS Arkansas . Ca'liforni Colorado Connecticut. Delaware District of Columbi Florida Georgia Kansas.. . Kentucky. Louisiana Maine. . . . Maryland. ind Dnable market value. Effective in 1978, the following percentages thereof apply for the types of realty indi rated: Class 1, utilities used in business--30 percent. Class 2, property not otherwise c lass if ied--20 percent. Class 3, agricultural, forest, historic, and owner-occupied, at the request of the owner, be valued on the basis of curr single-family idential--10 pe Class 3 property Full and true Full cash value. The following percentages apply for the types of realty indicated: Class 1, flight property, railroads, producing mines--60 percent (52 percent effective July 3, 1980; railroads excluded). Class 2, property of other public ut i 1 i t ies-- 50 percent (44 percent effective July 3, 19b0). Class 3, commercial and industrial property--27 percent (25 percent effective July 3, 19C0). Class 4, all agricultural realty— 18 percent (16 percent effective July 3, 1980). Class 5, residential--15 percent (10 percent effective July 3, 1980). Class 6, not included above, and leased or rented solely for residential use--21 percent (la percent effective July 3, 1980). Class 7, designated as historic--8 percent (effective July 3, 1980: this becomes class 8; new class 7, railroads and private car companies, at 34 percent). Values are adjusted before application of the tax rate in order to offset the effects of inflation. For 1979, values were divided by a factor of 1.15 in accordance with Laws 1979, Chapter 153, Section 6. Effective July 3, 1980, a dual assess- ment system applies. and full or actual value. 20 pe )f tr 25 percent of: "Full cash value" or "fair market value," defined as the amount of cash' or its equivalent which property would bring if exposed for sale in the open market under conditions in which neither buyer nor seller could take advantage of the exigencies of the other and both with knowledge of all the uses and purposes to which the property is adapted and for which it is capable of being used and of the enforceable restrictions upon those uses and purposes. 1 Effective January 1, 1981, 100 percent of "full cash value" replaces the 25 percent statutory assessment level; tax rates adjusted tc prevent additional revenue being raised from this change. 30 percent of actual value \lot exceeding 100 pe cent of present tru Estimated market value. F Class 1, owner occupied, }f true and actual or fair market value. All municipalities assess at a uniform rate of 70 pe actual value, subject to "equalized net grand list" for "guaranteed tax base program." :lassified isidential :o the following ca il property of not than five dwell] il rates: ! unit cc Class 2, not owner occupied property that would otherwise qualify as class 1. Class 3, real property not in classes 1 and 2. Full cash value. 40 percent of fai 60 percent of fai market value, market value . 20 percent of market value. The 1 pel appraised or indexed by June 1, 1980 the tax year beginning January 1, 19c flation not to exceed 2 percent per > 33-1/3 percent of fair cash value, exc classifies, the highest c lassif icat ic Just valuation, defined by State as 33-1/3 pe i initiative approved in the 1978 general electior 1 estimated market value as of December 31, 1978. in subsequent years, valuations may be adjusted tc ires all property to be re- valuation is to be used fc ;nsate for the rate of in- jf 200,000 01 ; than 2-1/2 tfhich classify property. In any county whi :he lowest classification. !t of true sh vaU 100 percent of actual value; beginning in 1977 and biennially thereafter, such values subject to equalizing adjustments by the Department of Revenue on the basis of property category (agricultural, urban residential, rural residential, and com- mercial) and county. For 1979 adjustment factors ranged from -38 percent to +67 percent although most were positive. Be- ginning in fiscal 1978, rollback adjustments by property class Statewide were instituted. Rollback percentages for 1979 were as follows: Agricultural, 94.6706; residential, 64.3801; commercial and railroad, 88.9872; industrial and utility, no rollback. 30 pe Fai ;nt of fa ih value. rket valu ney. Assessment at the following percentages of fa Land--10 percent of fair market value. Improvements for residential purposes--10 percent of fair market value. Agricultural, horticultural, marsh and timber land — 10 percent of use valu Public service property except land--25 percent of fair market value. Other property — 15 percent of fair market value. ket value, for classifications of property as specified: Just value Full cash value; i.e., current value less an allowan cent plus an additional 5 percent for homesteads. Massachusetts Michigan See footnotes at end o Fair cash valuation. I 50 percent of true cash valu f table. any inflation that exists. Such allowanc ty is grouped into four classes prior to applica 2ntly 50 pe jf tax 45 46 APPENDIX A— Continued State Basis Mi Percentages of market value, or limited market value if applicable, 3 as shown: Class 1, unmined iron ore--50 percent. Class la, low recovery iron ore--30 to 48.5 percent. Class 3, agricultural nonhomestead ; seasonal residential for recreation purposes--25 percent for 1981 and 22 percent thereafter (formerly 30 percent). Class 3, tools, implements, and machinery affixed to public utility rea 1 ty--33- 1/3 percent. Class 3a, commercial seasonal recreational residential not used more than 200 days per year which include a homestead: First $21,000* market value--12 percent (formerly 16 percent); excess of market value over $21,000--25 percent (formerly 30 percent). Prior to 1978 this property was included at class 3b. Class 3b, agricultural homestead; First $21,000* market value--12 percent (formerly 16 percent); excess of market value over $21,000--25 percent (formerly 30 percent). Class 3c, all other homesteads: First $25,000--16 percent; second $25,000--22 percent; 28 percent on the remaining bal- ance (formerly 18 percent of the first $21,000, 30 percent of excess of market value over $21,000). Class 3cc, homestead of blind person, paraplegic veteran or any person totally and permanently disabled:* Agricultural valued at 5 to 19 percent of the market value (formerly first $28,000 market value, 5 percent; excess of market value over $28,000, 25 percent). All other from 5 to 28 percent of market value (formerly first $28,000 market value, 5 per- cent; excess of market value over $28,000, 30 percent). Class 3d, nonresidential homestead, 4 or more units--38 percent (formerly 40 percent). Class 3dd, formerly included in class 3d, nonresidential homestead, 3 or fewer units--28 percent (formerly 32 percent). Class 3e, t imber land-- 19 percent (formerly 20 percent). Class 4a, all other realty--43 percent. Realty included in this class was formerly considered class 4 (43 percent). Class 4b, realty that is unimproved, noncommercial and not included in any other class--40 percent. Property in this class was formerly included in class 4 (43 percent). Mi Cash value ("...in proportion to its value..." per State constitution). 33-1/3 percent of true value in money. Mi Mo By classes, as follows, percentages of market value unless otherwise indicated: Class 3, agricultural land--30 percent of productive capacity. Class 4, land and improvements (unless otherwise classified) and trailers and mobile homes used as permanent dwellings-- 8.55 percent (formerly 12 percent). The first $35,000 of improvements to realty with appurtenant land owned by quali- fied individuals--12 percent multiplied by a percentage (0 to 90 percent) based on adjusted gross income (formerly all at 6 percent for this class). Class 5, property of cooperative rural electrical and telephone associat ions--3 percent. Class 10, centrally assessed utility allocations after deduction of locally assessed properties except those in classes 5 and 7--16 percent. Class 11, centrally assessed electric power companies' allocations and natural gas companies' a 1 locations-- 12 percent; other specified centrally assessed utility a 1 loca t ions-- 1 5 percent. Note : Summaries of classes listed above omit minor items and description detail. Nebraska 35 percent of actual value. Beginning January 1, 1981, all property must be valued at actual value. Ne /ada 35 percent of full cash value. Nev Full and true value in money. Nev True value. Taxable value is that percentage of true value, not lower than 20 percent or higher than 100 percent (the particular level being a multiple of 10), as is established by each county board of taxation. Nev i Mexico Taxable value, set at 33-1/3 percent of market value. Full value. Nev / York North Carolina True value in money. Historic property at 50 percent of true value upon application. 50 percent of true and full value in money (for most property). Taxable value, not to exceed 35 percent of true value in money. Not greater than 35 percent of fair cash value for the highest and best use for which such property was actually used, or was previously classified for use, during the calendar year next preceding the first day of January on which the assess- ment is made. Oh 100 percent of true cash value; i.e., market value as of assessment date. For assessment years beginning January 1, 1980, values are classified by counties into homestead and nonhomestead categories and are subject to equalizing adjustments by the Department of Revenue if Statewide increases exceed specified limits. Initial adjustments have been set at 84.2 per- cent of true cash value for homesteads and 87.6 percent of true cash value for all other property. IV nsylvania Actual value; but in fourth to eighth class counties, not to exceed 75 percent of actual value. Full and fair cash value, or a uniform percentage not exceeding 100 percent. Rh< de Island .., th Carol ina The following peacentages of fair market value: All realty owned or leased by manufacturers and ut i 1 i t ies-- 10.5 percent. Residences--not less than 4 percent. Agricultural realty (subject to specified except ions )--4 percent. Realty owned or leased by transportation companies--9. 5 percent. All other realty (includes leased agricultural, and commerc ia 1 )--6 percent. v, Not more than 60 percent of true and full value in money. Percentages of actual value, as follows: Public utilities— 55 percent. Te Industrial and commercia 1--40 percent. Farm and resident ial--25 percent. Texas True and lull value in money ("...in proportion to its value..." and never at a value "greater than its fair cash value..." pel '.i ate constitution). See footnotes at end of tabl< APPENDIX A— Continued 47 Vei Virginia Washington. . . . West Virginia. Wyoming. . Puerto Ri Virgin Islands. 25 pe ;nt of reasonable fa Listed value which is 100 percent of appraisal value (the latter is fair market value) entered in the grand list. d at 30 percent (22 percent for 1979). One perc< Fair market value. 100 percent of true and fair valu money. True and actual value, but four classes of property, each subject to a specified rate lin follows, amounts per $100 of assessed value: I--persona lty--50 cents. II--owner-occupied residential property, including f arms--$l .00. Ill— all property outside municipalities, other than I and II— $1.50. IV--all property inside municipalities, other than I and II--$2.00. Full value which could ordinarily be obtained for the property at private sale. Fair value in conformity with values and procedures prescribed by State Board of Equaliza Actual and effective value by utilizing any of the methods and factors recognized with re assessment so that the assessments for each of the different types of property may be un 60 percent of estimated actual values. nt of the listed value is than for debt property valuati 'in accordance with Article XIII of the constitution, approved June 8, 1978, the base year value is the above full cash value as of the lien date in 1975, or the subsequent date when the property is purchased, newly constructed, or when a change in ownership (as defined according to law) has occurred. For each lien date after that conditioning establishment of base year value, the full cash value shall reflect the percentage change in cost of living, except that such value shall not reflect an increase in excess of 2 percent of full cash value on preceding lien date. 2 Valuation for assessment for 1977 may not exceed 140 percent of average valuation of same property for years 1974 to 1976, excluding material changes. For 1978, valuation for assessment may not exceed 125 percent of valuation for prior year, excluding material change. Effective January 1, 1979, property may not be assigned a value exceeding 85 percent of average sale price of comparable properties. 3 "Limited market value" is the value which incorporates the maximum amount of increase over the market value estimate for the immediately preceding year. An assessor may increase a previous year's market value estimate by up to 10 percent of that previous year's estimate or 1/4 of the total amount of increase from the previous year, whichever is greater. Limited market value concept to be phased out over two-year period with taxes pay- able in 1981 being based on full market value. "Basic homestead component increased from $13,000 to $15,000 as of January 2, 1977. Subsequent annual adjustment is established via an index. As a result, the amount increased from $15,000 to $17,000 as of January 2, 1978. The component for taxes payable in 1980 was increased from $17,000 to $21,000. The homestead component for paraplegic veterans, the blind, or totally disabled was formerly $28,000 as of January 2, 1977. APPENDIX B: LEGAL BASIS FOR ASSESSED VALUE OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY, BY STATE: 1979 AND SUBSEQUENT PERIODS State 1 2 Basis' Alabama Basically, percentages of fair and reasonable value in three classes, same as for realty. Stocks of goods of merchants at fair and reasonable value of the average amount of goods held during 12 months next preceding October 1. A fourth class of property composed of passenger automobiles and noncommercial pickup trucks is assessed at 15 percent. Alaska Full and true value same as realty. Business inventories may be assessed on basis of average monthly value or value as of January 1. Seven classes of personal property, same as rea 1 ty .c lasses 1 to 7, with levels at 8 percent to 60 percent of market value (see Appendix A). Effective July 3, 1980, 8 classes with levels from 8 to 52 percent. 20 percent of usual selling price or average value (equivalent as to specified types of personalty, to true and full or California 25 percent of full cash value, except aircraft (assessed at market value), other minor exceptions. Unless otherwise specified, 30 percent of actual value. Stocks of merchandise at 5 percent of actual value. Livestock at Colorado 9 percent of actual value for 1979, 2 percent less annually till 1981, then 5 percent. Agricultural equipment, 10 percent in 1979, down to 5 percent, 1980 and thereafter. Not to exceed 100 percent of true and actual or fair market value, but unless otherwise provided at 70 percent of same. Full and true value in money. District of Columbia Florida Full cash value, same as realty; except inventories, assessed at 10 percent of just valuation; raw materials and goods in process at 1 percent of just valuation. 40 percent of fair market value, same as realty. Motor vehicles in dealers' inventories assessed at 75 percent of the assessed value for other motor vehicles. Idaho 20 percent of market value, same as realty. Personalty coming into State April 1 and after, at fractions of full assessed value. For the tax year beginning January 1, 1980, estimated market value as of December 31, 1978, same as realty (see Appendix A ) . Illinois 3 33-1/3 percent of fair cash value. 33-1/3 percent of true cash value, same as realty. Inventory may be assessed at average value. Actual value, same as realty; inventory is assessed at average value. 30 percent of fair market value, same as realty. In accordance with fair market value "criteria" provided in statute. Stocks of merchandise at average inventory value. Plants and storage bases engaged in utilization of waste material assessed at 25 percent of actual value until Indiana Iowa Kansas December 31 , 1980. Maine Just value, same as realty. Inventory assessable at average value. Personal property assessed at full cash value, without allowance for inflation (unlike realty). Stock in trade assessed on Maryland basis of lower of cost or market. Fair cash valuation, same as realty. 50 percent of true cash value, same as realty. Percentages of market value, as specified, subject to amendments: Class 2a, mobile homes: Michigan Homestead, first $17,000 market value--22 percent (formerly 25 percent). Excess of market value over $17,000--36 per- cent (formerly 40 percent). Nonhomes tead--40 percent. Class 3, structures on leased public lands in rural areas, leased agricultural real estate on exempt land--30 percent (formerly 31 percent). Class 3, tools, implements, and machinery affixed to public utility persona lty--33- 1 /3 percent. Class 4, structures on leased public lands in urban areas and on railroad operating right of way; all other leased realty on exempt land; utility systems; billboards, advertising signs and devices--43 percent. Mississippi Cash value, same as realty. 33-1/3 percent of true value in money, same as realty. By classes, as follows, percentages of market value unless otherwise indicated: Class 1, certain mineral exploration in teres ts-- 1 00 percent; certain annual net proceeds of mines and mining claims--100 Missouri percent of annual net proceeds less specified expenses. Class 2, annual gross proceeds of metal mines--3 percent of annual gross proceeds; annual gross proceeds of underground coal mines--33-l/3 percent of annual gross proceeds; annual gross proceeds of coal mines using the strip-mining method-- 45 percent of annual gross proceeds. Class 5, property of cooperative rural electrical and telephone associations except property specifically enumerated in class 7; air and water pollution control equipment--3 percent. Class 6, business inventories; unprocessed agricultural products--4 percent. Class 7, livestock; poultry; specified public utility property--8 percent. Class 8, agricultural tools and machinery; mining machinery and equipment; manufacturing machinery and equipment; motor- cycles; watercraft; aircraft; snowmobiles; tack; all machinery not elsewhere c Lassif ied-- 11 percent- Class 9, autos, trucks, motor vehicles, furniture and fixtures used in commercial establ ishments-- 1 3 percent. Class 10, radio and te levision equipment ; cent ra 1 ly assessed utility allocations after deductions of locally assessed properties except those in classes 5 and 7; coal and ore hauling; all other property not specifically c lass i f ied-- 16 percent . Noie : Summaries of classes listed above omit minor items and description detail. See footnotes at end of table. 48 APPENDIX B— Continued 49 State 1 2 Basis 1 35 percent of actual value, same as realty. Beginning January 1, 1981, all property must be valued at actual value. 35 percent of full cash value, same as realty. Business inventories and livestock are assessed at 28 percent of full cash value for fiscal 1979-80; 21 percent for 1980-81; 14 percent for 1981-82; 7 percent for 1982-83; exempt subsequent to 1982-83. Depreciable personal property used in business assessed at not less than 20 percent of original cost to taxpayer. Person- alty of telegraph, telephone and messenger companies assessed on average ratio basis. Taxable value, set at 33-1/3 percent of market value, same as realty. Specified valuation procedures. 50 percent of full and true value in money, same as realty. Taxable stocks of merchandise assessable on average inventory basis. The following percentages of true value in money: Certain merchants and manufacturers persona lty— 39 percent for 1979 returns; 37 percent for 1980; 35 percent for 1981 and subsequent years. Other personalty used in business--44 percent for 1979 returns; 42 percent for 1980; 40 percent for 1981; 38 percent for 19j2; 36 percent for 1983; 35 percent for 1984 and subsequent years. Rural electric company property except motor vehicles--50 percent. Machinery of electric power plants— 100 percent. 35 percent of fair cash value, except stocks of goods assessed on basis of certain average values. 100 percent of true cash value, same as realty, except that taxable ships and vessels with Oregon as home port registry are assessed at 40 percent of true cash value; those in intercoastal or foreign trade are assessed at 4 percent of true cash value. Following percentages of fair market value: Business inventories, 6 percent; personalty owned or leased to transportation companies, 9-1/2 percent; personalty owned or leased to manufacturers and utilities, 10-1/2 percent; commercial fishing boats and power driven farm machinery, 5 percent; all other, 10-1/2 percent. Seven-year phase-in period for most categories. Fair market value of machinery and equipment of manufacturers determined from original cost less scheduled depreciation. Effective January 1, 1979, all personal property not centrally assessed is exempt (formerly 60 percent of true and full Tangible personalty, percentages of actual value, as follows: Public utilities—55 percent. Commercial and indus t r ia 1--30 percent. Other— 5 percent (however, any such property is presumed to have no value). 25 percent of reasonable fair cash value, same as realty; mining claims and machinery at 30 percent (22 percent for 1979). Listed value which is 100 percent of appraisal value (the latter is fair market value). One percent of the listed value of personalty is entered in the grand list. Business personalty is appraised, at the taxpayers option, at either 50 percent of cost (10 percent if fully depreciated) or net book value (10 percent if fully depreciated). 100 percent of true and fair value in money, same as realty, except as follows: Animals, birds, insects, crops at percent- ages of true and fair value declining from 40 percent in 1979 to zero in 1983. Equivalent phasing out applicable to busi- ness inventories via 10 percent tax credit, exemption 1983. True and actual value, but four classes of property, same as realty, each subject to a specified rate limit. True cash value, subject to property tax offsets. 'in the following Stat Massachusetts, Mississipp 2 The v following States 3 As of January 1, 1979 this date will still be d "'Classif ica t ion scheme the applicable perc es, the full value legal basis specified in Appendix A, for realty also applies to tangible personalty: Kentucky, Maine, , New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, Wyoming, do not tax tangible personalty: Delaware, Hawaii, New York, Pennsylvania (South Dakota as of January 1, 1979). personal property will be exempt from tax. This change will begin with the 1980 tax roll. All uncollected taxes as of ue and payable. shown applies to values used for determining taxes payable in 1979. For taxes payable in 1980, there were some changes in APPENDIX C: PROVISIONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTY FOR AGRICULTURAL, OPEN SPACE, AND ASSOCIATED EXPLICIT USES, BY STATE: 1979 and SUBSEQUENT PERIODS Provisions affecting assessed value applicable to explicitly specified uses Arkansas . Californi Connecticut . District of Columbi Kentucky. Maryland. jnt only. Applies to Class III property only (agricultural, forest, historic, and single family, occupied properties). Owner must request current use assessment. Deferred taxati y be assessed at full and true value for farm s an amount equal to the additional tax at the current mill levy togeth eding seven years. Recap- Use value assessment only. Use value assessment only. Contracts and agreements.. Use value assessment only. Use value assessment only (sometimes classified as deferred taxation, becaus of conveyance tax cited). Use value assessment only. Use value assessment only. Use value assessment only. Contracts and agreements.. mber use land; application Upon application, farm use land ture provi with 8 percent interest for th Current use provision applies to agricultural, f Basis for "full value" of owner-occupied land zoned and exclusively used for s ingle- f ami ly residential or agricultural purposes; and for parcels of 10 or more acres each, used for 2 or more years for nonprofit golf course purposes (value of any mines or minerals involved is added). Assessor must also consider any applicable restrictions in certified local coastal programs, effective January 1, 1977. Basis for "full value" of open space land subject to specified restrictions and uses. Use value based on productive capacity during reasonable period, capitalized at 11.5 percent, effective 1976. Farm, forest, open space land sold within 10 years of initial acquisition or of such classi- fication (in the case of forest or farm land) subject to conveyance tax ranging from 10 per- cent of sales price if sold in first year to 1 percent thereof in 10th year. Specified ex- empt ions . Lands of not less than 5 acres, used for agricultural, horticultural, or fo 2 previous years, may be valued on the basis of such use; application requ available for de than market value purposes for I. nated historic properties if such assessment is Deferred taxation. Contracts and aere J'Jpon application, land may be classified as agricultural land and assessed solely on the basis of its agricultural use. A sales price three or more times an agricultural use assessed value creates presumption that land is not used primarily for bona fide agricultural pur- poses. Owners of environmentally endangered lands or lands used for outdoor recreational or park purposes may convey their development rights to the county or an internal improvement trust fund in return for assessments incorporating such lack of development rights. Recap- ture provision includes tax differential plus 6 percent interest per year. JAffects land dedicated to agricultural or ranching use in agricultural, rural, conservation, " A urban districts. Assessment is on the basis of such use or 50 percent of its assessed f agricultural districts. Other provisions relate to land dedicated to Dlf course and single family, cupied residential use ssment only. Deferred taxati Use value assessment only. Use value assessment only. Deferred taxa Deferred taxation. Use value assessment only. Contracts and agreements.. Deferred taxation Deferred taxation. Contracts and agreements. Land actively devoted to agriculture which meets specified criteria may be classified as agri- cultural property; excludes land used for pleasure or part of a platted subdivision. Upon application, real property used for farming or agricultural purposes shall be valued at 33-1/3 percent of fair cash value based upon such agricultural use. Two standards available under which property may qualify as agricultural. Recapture provision includes 5 percent interest on roll-back amounts. Land shall be assessed as agricultural land as long as it is devoted to agricultural use. Productivity and net earning capacity constitute the valuation basis, except that dwellings on agricultural realty are assessed on a market value basis, effective with 1981 assessments. Agricultural use land may be assessed on the basis of actual or potential agricultural income or productivity. Agricultural or horticultural lands meeting specified gross income levels in 3 of 5 preceding years may be assessed according to the land's value for agricultural or horticultural use. Upon change in use, deferred taxes for immediately preceding 2 tax years become due. Agricultural, horticultural, marsh, or timber land may, upon application, be valued at 10 percent of use value assessment. Buildings of historical architectural importance may be similarly valued on a use basis but with a deferred tax provision. Agreements refer to reforestation contracts. Upon application, cropland, farmland, farm woodland, open space land, orchard land, and pas- tureland may be valued on current use value for agricultural or open space purposes. In addition, a tree growth tax, amended February 9, 1978, provides for productivity based assessment, at specif ied va lue levels, for forest land. Lands actively devoted to farm or agricultural use are assessed on the basis of such use. Conversion to other use subjects land to a development tax equal to 10 percent of the dif- ference between the agricultural and nonagr icul tura 1 use assessments. Easements to a government, or to the Nature Conservancy, which place limitations on use are reflected in valuations. See footnotes at end of table. 50 APPENDIX C— Continued 51 Scat Massachusetts. Michigan Minnesota Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire. New Jersey. . . . New Mexico. . . . New York North Carolina North Dakota. . Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania.. Rhode Island.. South Carolina South Dakota. . Tennessee Provisions affecting assessed value applicable to explicitly specified uses Deferred taxation Contracts and agreements.. Contracts and agreements.. Deferred taxation Use value assessment only. Deferred taxation Deferred taxation Deferred taxation Deferred taxation Contracts and agreements.. Deferred taxation Use value assessment only. Deferred taxation Contracts and agreements.. Deferred taxation Use value assessment only. Deferred taxation Use value assessment only. Deferred taxation Deferred taxation Contracts and agreements.. Deferred taxation Deferred taxation Use value assessment only. Deferred taxation Local option permits assessment of agricultural or horticultural 'lands based upon such use. Land must be at least 5 acres and have been in benefited use category for 2 immediately pre- ceding years. Conveyance tax levied if land sold for other than specified use within 10 years; if land is disqualified from benefited use assessment, roll-back taxes are levied. Under specif ied . conditions , city or town has limited right of first refusal when such prop- erty is offered for sale. Conservation restrictions. State-financed, also related to household income (circuit breaker type) effective 1974. FariT land or open space development rights agreements with minimum 10-year term. Upon application, qualifying agricultural real estate of more than 10 acres and qualifying real estate devoted to golf or skiing recreational use of more than 5 acres may be assessed on a use basis. Deferred taxes are payable for prior 3 years of use assessment without in- terest. Available to agricultural or horticultural land in such use for 5 preceding years, with aver- age annual gross sales of $2,500. Must meet specified conditions regarding use and size include deferred taxes up to 4 preceding years of us income. Roll-back tax provision may Land within an agricultural use zone which is used exclusively for agricultural purposes may be assessed on the basis of such use. If eligibility ends, deferred tax on any difference in values for 5 years plus interest at 6 percent. Applies to agricultural or open space land. Deferred tax provision may extend up to 84 months prior to change in use; interest added at 6 percent per year. Qualifying farm land, forest land, wetland, recreation land, flood plain land, or wild land may be assessed based on current use values established by the current use advisory board. A land use change tax is levied at the rate of 10 percent of the full and true value of the land changed to other than open space use. Current use assessment may also be obtained for qualifying land through the owner's granting of discretionary easements to a city or town for a minimum 10-year term. Release only for cases of extreme personal hardship with penalties specified. Agricultural or horticultural land of 5 or more acres and in such use for 2 preceding years may be assessed based on such use; application required. Roll-back provision may include up to 2 years of deferred taxes. Basis is productive capacity. Land of 10 or more acres in size in an agricultural district and generating $10,000 or more in agricultural products may be entitled to an agricultural assessment. Newly constructed structures on agricultural or horticultural lands subject to exemption for up to 10 years. Eligible forest land must be committed to forest crop production for 10-year period. Applies to agricultural or horticultural parcels of 10 acres or more; gross income from prod- ucts grown therein must average $1,000 or more annually for 3 preceding years. Qualifying forest land must be of at least 20 acres in size. Deferred taxes payable upon change in use may extend up to 3 preceding years plus interest. Land classified as agricultural prior to annexation retained in that classification until use changes. Value must be uniform with that of adjoining agricultural land not annexed. Requirements include specified minimum size, agricultural use 3 preceding years, and applica- tion. Deferred taxation may extend up to 4 preceding years of use assessment. Agricultural lands, when devoted exclusively to farm use, shall be valued on the basis of such farm use. Deferred tax provision extends up to 10 preceding years and includes 6 per- cent interest. Deferred taxation does not apply where use changes from unzoned land used for farm use to a farm use zone. Upon application, qualifying agricultural land, agricultural reserve, and/or forest reserve may be given preferential use assessments. Requirements include 10-acre minimum size and for agricultural land, an anticipated annual gross income of $2,000 and 3 preceding years of ben- efited use. Roll-back taxes may extend for up to 7 previous tax years and 6 percent interest. Counties may convenant with owners of farm or forest land for preservation of land in farm, forest, water supply, or open space use. Such agreements may be negotiated to conform with more recent provisions of preferential use assessment described above. Farm, forest, or open space land. Roll-back tax provision applicable for current year and 2 preceding years of use value assessment. Qualifying agricultural real property used for agricultural purposes is assessed at specified percentages of fair market value for such agricultural purposes. Timber land may qualify for such agricultural use assessment. Roll-back provision may include deferred taxes for current year and immediately preceding 5 years. Land devoted to agricultural use shall be classified and taxed regard to the zoning classification which it may be given. icultural land without Qualifying lands include agricultural of at least 15 acres, forest of at least 15 acres, and open space of at least 3 acres. Roll-back taxes extend for up to 3 years for agricultural and forest lands and up to 5 years for open space lands. Special provision is made for assessment of lands with open space easements. See footnotes at end of table. 52 APPENDIX C— Continued Provisions affecti ng assessed State value applies ble to Remarks explicitly speci fied uses Deferred taxatior Upon application, land owned by natural persons and used for agricultural purposes for the 3 years immediately preceding may be assessed based upon such use. Lands restricted to recrea- tional, park, or open space use may be assessed based upon such restricted use; land must be of 5 acres in size and restriction must be for a minimum of 10 years. Roll-back provision for agricultural lands extends for up to 3 preceding years; for recreational lands up to 5 preceding years plus current year. Utah Deferred taxation Land actively devoted to agricultural use may be assessed based upon such use if of at least 5 contiguous acres, generating gross income of at least $1,000 per year, and having been de- voted to such use for the 2 immediately preceding years; application required. Waivers of acreage and income limitations possible. Roll-back taxes may extend up to 5 years of bene- fited use. Vermont Deferred taxation Agricultural land and managed forest land meeting specified criteria are eligible for use value appraisal . Upon development, land use change tax is levied in the amount of 10 percent of the full fair market value of the changed land determined without regard to the use value appraisal. Land may be withdrawn from use value assessment and payment of land use change tax deferred until development occurs. Contracts and agr eemen ts .... A municipal corporation may enter into contracts with owners of agricultural, forest land, in- dustrial or commercial real and personal property for the purpose of fixing and maintaining the valuation of such property on the grand list; contracts may also be made for fixed rates, fixed annual amounts, or fixed percentages of the annual tax. Virginia Deferred taxation Any county, city, or town which has adopted a land use plan may by ordinance provide for the use value assessment of real estate used for agricultural, horticultural, forest, or open space purposes. Roll-back tax provision includes current year and up to 5 immediately pre- ceding years. Washington Deferred taxation Contracts and agr I eement s .... J Open space land, farm and agricultural land, and timber land (of at least 5 acres and exclud- ing timber value) may qualify for current use assessment. Land classified on a current use basis must continue to be so classified for a period of 10 years. If the owner, after 8 years, requests withdrawal from current use assessment, roll-back taxes for 7 years plus in- terest at the statutory rate are payable at the end of 2 additional years. If a change in use occurs before the end of the 10-yeac period, the aforementioned roll-back taxes and in- terest are due plus an additional 20 percent of the roll-back amount. West Virginia Use value assessir ent only... The true and actual value of all farms used, occupied, and cultivated by their owners or bona fide tenants shall be arrived at according to the value of the property for the purpose for * which it is actually used. Wisconsin . See remarks Constitutional amendment, approved April 2, 1974: Taxation of agricultural and undeveloped land need not be uniform with that of each other or with that of other realty. Effective May 19, 1978, income tax credits and refunds available to eligible owners of quali- fying farmland 35 or more acres in size, applicable to specifically defined "excessive prop- erty taxes," maximum such excessive amount $6,000. W omine Use value assessrr ent only... Minimum of 2 previous years in benefited use. Deferred taxat terest specifi >view of applicable legal provisions): .on--Change from benefited (explicitly specified) use activates tax on value differences, for specified time periods, plus any in- Contracts and a assessment dete E?nts--Agreements providing for limitations on use over specified part of explicitly specified use value APPENDIX D: SELECTED REFERENCES Part 1. Official Recurring Reports (From State Government IOWA Agencies Unless a Local Government Source is Specified) Department of Revenue, Des Moines 50319. Summary of Real Estate Assess- ment/Sales Ratio Study 1978. KANSAS Note: Reports are not limited to ratio study coverage. Latest report in Bureau files is listed. Frequency annual un- Department of Revenue, Division of Property Valuation, Topeka 66612. less otherwise indicated. Real Estate Assessment Sales Ratio Study 1979. Department of Revenue, Division of Property Valuation, Topeka 66612. ALABAMA Statistical Report of Property Assessment and Taxation for the Year -1978. Department of Revenue, Montgomery 36130. Assessment Sales Ratio Study 1968-69, May 1970. LOUISIANA ALASKA State Tax Commission, Baton Rouge 70804. Nineteenth Biennial Report for Years 1978-79, May 1980. Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of Local Govern- ment Assistance, Juneau 99801. Alaska Taxable 1978, January 1979. MAINE ARIZONA Bureau of Taxation, Property Tax Divison, Augusta 04330. Municipal Valuation Return - 1979, April 1980. Department of Revenue, Division of Property and Special Taxes, Central Information Services Section, Phoenix 85007. Abstract of the Assess- MARYLAND ment Roll 1979, January 1980. Department of Assessments and Taxation, Baltimore 21201. Thirty-fifth ARKANSAS Annual Report for the Year - 1978, January 1979. Department of Commerce, Public Service Commission, Little Rock 72205. MASSACHUSETTS Biennial Report of the Tax Division for Years 1977-78, January 1979. Department of Corporations and Taxation, Boston 02204. Annual Report Department of Commerce, Public Service Commission, Little Rock 72205. 1977-78, December 1978. Eleventh Biennial Report (1977-78) of the Assessment Coordination Division, January 1979. MICHIGAN CALIFORNIA Department of Treasury, State Tax Commission, Lansing 48922. 1977 State Equalized Valuation and Average Tax Rate Data, April 1978. Office of State Controller, Sacramento 95814. Annual Report of Assessed Valuation of the Counties of California as of September Department of Treasury, State Tax Commission, Lansing 48922. 1980 Fac- 1979, for the Fiscal Year 1979-80. tors, Assessed Valuations and Units Portion of State Equalized Valua- tions. State Board of Equalization, Sacramento 95808. 1978-79 Annual Report for the Year Ending June 30, 1979, December 1979. MINNESOTA COLORADO Department of Revenue, Local Government Aids and Analysis Division, St. Paul 55145. 1978 Real Estate Assessment/Sales Ratio Study-Report Department of Local Affairs, Division of Property Taxation, Denver Number Eight, August 1979. 80203. Ninth Annual Report, January 1980. MISSISSIPPI CONNECTICUT Mississippi State Tax Commission, Jackson 39205. Service Bulletin- Office of the Commissioner of Revenue Services, Hartford 06115. Property Assessments and Ad Valorem Taxes for the Calendar Years of Information Relative to the Assessment and Collection of Taxes in 1977 and 1978. 1978, November 1979. MISSOURI Department of Revenue Services, Hartford 06115. 1978 Sales/Assessment Ratio Study. State Tax Commission, Jefferson City 65102. Thirty-Third Annual Report of the Proceedings and Decisions of the Missouri State Tax Commission FLORIDA for the Year Ending December 31, 1978, June 1979. Department of Revenue, Tallahassee 32301. Florida Ad Valorem Valuation State Tax Commission, Jefferson City 65102. 1979 Ratio Study, February and Tax Data - 1978. 1980. GEORGIA MONTANA Department of Audits, Atlanta 30334. Current Equalized Adjusted School Property Tax Digest, March 1980. Data not published but available. Department of Revenue, Helena 59601. Biennial Report for the Period July 1, 1976 - June 30, 1978. Department of Taxation, Honolulu 96809. Annual Report 1978-79 , Dece ber 1979. Department of Revenue and Taxation, Boise 83722. Thirty-fifth Annual Report of the State Tax Commission for the Year Ended June 30, 1979 , December 1979. ILLINOIS Department of Local Government Affairs, Springfield 62706. Illinois Property Tax Statistics 1977 . Department of Local Government Affairs, Springfield 62706. Assessment/ Sales Ratio Study Findings 1977 . Department of Revenue, Property Assessment Division, Mass Appraisal Bureau, Helena 59601. Sales Ratio Study , August 1979. NEBRASKA Department of Revenue, Lincoln 68509. 1977 Annual Report , 1977. Department of Taxation, Division of Assessment Standards, Carson City 89701. Report of the 1979-80 Ratio Study , January 1980. NEW HAMPSHIRE Department of Revenue Administration, Concord 03301. 1979 Assessment Sales Ratio Studies Equalization Process . 53 54 APPENDIX D— Continued NEW JERSEY Department of Treasury, Division of Taxation, Trenton 08625. Certif ica tion of Table of Equalized Valuations - 1975 , October 1975. NEW MEXICO Taxation and Revenue Department, Property Tax Division, Santa Fe 87509. Annual Report for 1979 Tax Year , January 1980. Board of Equalization and Assessment, Albany 12223. State Equalization Rates for 1978 Assessment Rolls of Cities, Towns and Villages , January 1980. NORTH DAKOTA North Dakota Tax Department, Bismarck 58505. 1979 Statistical Report- 1978 Property Taxes Levied and 1979 Property Valuation . OHIO Department of Tax Equalization, Columbus 43215. 1979 Sales Ratio Study . OKLAHOMA Oklahoma Tax Commission, Ad Valorem Tax Division, Oklahoma City 73194. 1978 Use Value Ratio Study , August 1979. Department of Revenue, Assessment and Appraisal Division, Salem 97310. Ratio and Assessment Data-1977 , September 1977. PENNSYLVANIA Tax Equalization Board, Harrisburg 17108. Thirty-first Annual Certifi- cation - 1978 Market Values , June 1979. RHODE ISLAND Department of Community Affairs, Division of Housing and Government Services, Tax Equalization Section, Providence 02903. 1979 Annual State Report on Local Government Finances and Tax Equalization , March 1980. SOUTH CAROLINA State Tax Commission, Columbia 29214. Sixty-fifth Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1979 , September 1979. SOUTH DAKOTA Department of Revenue, Property Tax Division, Pierre 57501. Twenty- second Annual Report for Calendar 1979 - Assessment and Sales Informa- t ion . TENNESSEE State Board of Equalization, Nashville 37217. 1979 Tax Aggregate Report , April 1980. State Tax Commission, Division of State Assessed Property, Salt Lake City 84109. 1979 Statistical Study of Assessed Valuation , May 1980. State Tax Commission, Local Valuation Division, Salt Lake City 84109. 1979 Assessment: Sales Analysis of Locally Assessed Real Property . Agency of Administration, Department of Taxes, Montpelier 05602. Biennial Report of the Commissioner of Taxes for the Term Ending June 30, 1976 , January 1977. VIRGINIA Department of Taxation, Richmond 23282. 1977 Virginia Assessment Salt Ratio Study , February 1979. WASHINGTON Department of Revenue, Property Tax Division, Olympia 98504. 1979 Ratio Study Summary Results , April 1980. WEST VIRGINIA State Tax Commission, Charleston 25305. Study of Property Valuations as They Relate to Levies Paid for the Support of Schools in West Virginia for the Tax Year 1979. Department of Revenue, Bureau of Local Financial Assistance, Division of State and Local Finance, Madison 53702. Town, Village and City Taxes 1978 - Taxes Levied in 1978 - Collected in 1979 - Bulletin 178, 278, 378 combined. Department of Revenue, Assessment Practices Division, Madison 53702. 1979 Detailed Sales Study , Unpublished but available. Department of Revenue and Taxation, Ad Valorem Tax Division, Cheyenne 82002. 1979 Annual Report , November 1979. Part 2. Reports of Special Commissions or Other Agencies NEW JERSEY New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce, Newark 07102. 1977 Property Tax Data; Tax Rates, Levies and Assessment Ratios . Part 3. Selected General References The list is indicative, not exhaustive. In addition to its specifics, publications of particular agencies may be helpful. The agencies include Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Washington, D.C. 20575 Federation of Tax Administrators, 444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001 International Association of Assessing Officers, 1313 E 60 Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637 National Tax Association-Tax Institute of America, 21 E State Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215 Tax Reform Research Group, 133 C Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 Specific references follow: 1. Aaron, Henry, Who Pays the Property Tax? , Washington, D.C, The Brookings Institution, 1975, 110 pages. 2. Abt Associates, Property Tax Relief Programs for the Elderly: A Compendium Report , Washington, D.C, 1975. 3. Adams, Jack E. and Bruce Lindeman, "Speculation in Undeveloped Land, Appraisal Journal , April 1979, pp. 218-226. 4. Barrows, Richard L. and Bruce A. Prenguber, "Transfer of Development Rights: An Analysis of a New Land Use Policy Tool," American Journal of Agricultural Economics , November 1975, pp. 549-557. 5. Behrens, John 0., "Again Some Facts for a Tax under Attacks Revenue Administration - 1979, Federation of Tax Administrators Washington, D.C, 1979, pp. 201-207. 6. Behrens, John 0., "Property Tax Administration: Use of Assessment Ratios," Journal of Education Finance , Vol. 3, No. 2, 1977, pp. 158-174. 7. Behrens, John 0., "Property Taxes and Property Values: What's New About Base, Burden, and Other Mysteries," Public School Finance Programs, 1978-79 , compiled and edited by Esther 0. Tron, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C, 1980, pp. 22-41. 8. Bezeau, Lawrence M., "Recent Developments in Property Assessment and Taxation in Canada," Journal of Education Finance , pp. 175-186. 9. Blake, Daniel R., "Property Tax Incidence: An Alternate View," Land Economics , Vol. 55, No. 4, November 1979, pp. 521-531. 10. Borst, Richard A. and John F. Thompson, Jr., "Computer-assisted Tax Equalization: A Model Project," Revenue Administration - 1979 , Federa- tion of Tax Administrators, Washington, D.C, 1979, pp. 207-212. 11. Brandon, Robert M., Jonathan Rowe , and Thomas H. Stanton, Tax Politics, How They Make You Pay and What You Can Do About It , Pantheon Books, New York, New York, 1976, 297 pages. 12. Church, Albert M. and Robert H. Gustatson, Statistics and Computers in the Appraisal Process , International Association of Assessing Officers, Chicago, III., 1976, 160 pages. 13. Colwell, Peter F. , "A Statistically Oriented Definition of Market Value," Appraisal Journal , January 1979, pp. 53-58. APPENDIX D— Continued 5b 14. Colwell, Peter F. , and C.F. Sirraans, "Area, Time, Cent.ral.ity and the Value of Urban Land," Land Economics , Vol. 54, No. 4, November 1978, pp. 514-519. 15. Correll, Mark R., Jane H. Lillydahl, and Larry D. Singell, "The Effects of Greenbelts on Residential Property Values: Some Findings on the Political Economy of Open Space," Land Economics , Vol. 54, No. 2, May 1979, pp. 201-217. 16. Dasso, Jerome, Computerized Assessment Administration , International Association of Assessing Officers, Chicago, 111., 1974, 231 pages. 17. Entreken, Henry C, Jr., "Are We Really Seeking Market Value?" Appraisal Journal , July 1980, pp. 428-431. 18. Fishkind, Henry H., Jerome W. Milliman, and Richard W. Ellson, "A Pragmatic Econometric Approach to Assessing Economic Impacts of Growth or Decline in Urban Areas," Land Economics , Vol 54, No. 4, Novem- ber 1978, pp. 442-460. 19. Gipe, George W. "Understanding Multiple Regression Analysis," Assessors Journal , December 1975, pp. 1-14. 20. Gipe, George W., "Analysis of Residuals to Improve Multiple Regression Equations," Assessors Journal , April 1974, pp. 9-16. 21. Gloudemans, Robert J., "The Record of Assessment Performance in the United States," International Property Assessment Administration 8 , International Association of Assessing Officers, Chicago, 111., pp. 255- 264. 22. Gold, Steven David, Property Tax Relief , Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Co., Lexington, Massachusetts, and Toronto, 1979. 23. Healy, Robert G. and James L. Short, "New Forces in the Market for Rural Land," Appraisal Journal , April 1978, pp. 185-199. 24. Holland, Daniel M., ed., The Assessment of Land Value , Committee on Taxation, Resources, and Economic Development, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Milwaukee, and London, 1970, 292 pages. 25. Ihlanfeldt, Keith Ray, "The Incidence of the Property Tax on Home- owners: Evidence from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics," National Tax Journal , Vol. 32, No. 4, December 1979, pp. 535-541. 26. International Association of Assessing Officers, Analyzing Assess- ment Equity , Techniques for Measuring and Improving the Quality of Property Tax Administration, IAA0, Chicago, 111., 1977, 216 pages. 27. International Association of Assessing Officers, Improving Real Property Assessment, A Reference Manual , written by Richard R. Almy, Robert J. Gloudemans, Robert C. Denne , and Stuart W. Miller, IAA0 , Chicago, 111., 1978, 444 pages. 28. Land Data Systems Now , Proceedings of Second MOLDS Conference, North American Institute for Modernization of Land Data Systems, Washington, D.C, 1979, 283 pages. 29. Levin, Betsy, "New Legal Challenges in Educational Finance," Journal of Education Finance , Vol. 3, No. 1, 1977, pp. 54-69. 30. Manvel, Allen D., Trends in Value of Real Estate and Land: 1956 to 1966 , Research Report No. 12, Washington, D.C: National Commission on Urban Problems, 1968. 31. Milgram, Grace, The City Expands: A Study of the Conversion of Land from Rural to Urban Use - Philadelphia, 1945-62 , Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Institute for Environmental Studies, 1967. 32. Montgomery, David and James Tait, "Development of a Simplified Market Data Approach for Mass Appraisal," International Property Assessment Administration 8 , International Association of Assessing Officers, Chicago, 111., 1976, pp. 151-173. 33. Moyer, D. David, Land Information Systems: An Annotated Bibliography , North American Institute for Modernization of Land Data Systems, Washington, D.C, 1978, 195 pages. 34. Moyer, D. David and Kenneth Paul Fisher, Land Parcel Identifiers for Information Systems , American Bar Foundation, Chicago, 111., 1973. 35. National Association of Realtors, Existing Home Sales: 1979 , Washington, D.C, 1980. 36. National Tax Association-Tax Institute of America, "Equity through the Administrative and Judicial Review of Original Assessments," Report of Property Taxation Committee, in Proceedings of the Sixty-Ninth Annual Conference on Taxation , Columbus, Ohio, 1977, pp. 114-122. 37. Oldman, Oliver and Mary Miles Teachout, "Valuation and Appeals under a Separate Tax on Land," Assessors Journal , March 1980, pp. 43-57. 38. Paul, Diane B., The Politics of the Property Tax , Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Co., Lexington, Mass., Toronto, and London, 1975, 158 pages. 39. Pomp, Richard D., "What is Happening to the Property Tax?" Assessors Journal , June 1980, pp. 107-126. 40. Proceedings of North American Conference , North American Institute for Modernization of Land Data Systems, Washington, D.C, 1975, 461 pages 41. Reinmuth, James E., "Innovative Techniques for Measuring Assessment Performance," International Property Assessment Administration 8 , Inter- national Association of Assessing Officers, Chicago, 111., 1976, pp. 175- 185. 42. Smith, David V., "An Appraiser Looks at Multiple Regression," Appraisal Journal , April 1979, pp. 248-252. 43. Smith, T. Reynolds, "Linear Regression Analysis of Sales Data," Assessors Journal , July 1970, pp. 3-9. 44. Stocker, Frederick D., John H. Bowman, Richard L. Lucier, and Willi H. Oakland, Fiscal Options for the State of Ohio , Volume 1: Background and General Issues , Academy for Contemporary Problems, Columbus, Ohio 43201, 1980. 45. Swartz, T.R., and Lawrence C. Marsh, "A Self-assessed Property Tax Revisited Once Again," Proceedings of the Seventieth Annual Conference on Taxation (1977: Louisville), National Tax Association-Tax Institute of American, Columbus, Ohio, 1978, pp. 191-199. 46. Thomas, James G., "The Influence of Environmental Legislation on the Appraisal Process," Appraisal Journal , January 1978, pp. 26-31. 47. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Taxable Property Values and Assessment/ Sales Price Ratios, Volume 2, 1977 Census of Governments, Washington, D.C. November 1978, 294 pages. 'U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980-0-340-997/130? Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Official Business Penalty for Private Use, $300 Postage and Fees Paid U.S. Department of Commerce COM-202 V^ Special Fourth-Class Rate -Book AOODDlSTfiEbfil J