Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1917-12-13
Mr.. Chairman and Gentlemen of the


county. The law. (Section 1879, pro-
vides that this be done annually. and
that the county and state tax be an
portioned to each district on the
basis of the true value as determined
by you.
The law provides for three equal
izations. The first is made by the
local Board of Review. and is by far
the most important of all euualIza-
tons for the reason that ultimately
1t is upon the basis of the local equal
lzatlon that all taxes local, county
and state, are assessed to the in
dlVldual tax payer The second equal
lzatlon provides that the State Tax
commission eQualiZe the value of the
dlf1erent counties in the state for the
purpose OF determining the true
value thereof, and it is upon the Com
MISSIONS equalization that the an
portlOnment OF state tax tn each
county is made. The third eoualiza-
tlon. and the one on which YOU. thru
your Equalization Committee. will act
at TINS time, has to do primarily with
the determining of the true value of
each assessment district in this conn
~ SO that the state and county fax
may be fairly and justly apportioned
to the several districts.
The law provides for full value
assessment, and justice demands II
First because only one standard l.
legal. Second, and all important
that only by our use of standard
measure of value can inst and
equitable assessment be made, None
OF you men here, fail to recognize tho
STANDARD Of
sell corn or oats by weight. nor hav
oy measure, nor do you when Won
Duy lumber or sell land or enter into
any business transaction fail to re-
cognlze the legal standards set nm
Tor true measure. Just why local
assessors fail to assess at full yalne
IN view OF the legal requirements and
the careful equalization that district
assessments receive at the hands NJ
county boards, is more than can
understand. Time was, when tho biph-
est assessed district was penalized IN
equallzation, and it is perhaps dine ia
tnat old practice in county eoualiza-
tlon that local assessors still nor
severe in continuing an under-asensc
ment' With the ever increasing valno
ol all kinds OF property, the local
assessor must, of necessity. assess
hlgher each year than the precedine
year, II he hopes to keep his distrirt
III the we'll assessed class.
Let me here say this. The fact tbot
district has low local assessment
is not in itself evidence that q noor
equalization has been made in that
district. 1t may be that the assessor
does equItably assess all propertv in
"h1ch case. certainly, no iniustira
would De done among the various fax
payers OF that district. The danger
however, OF underassesSment is great
ior me reason that properties of
moderate value, when a less than
true value is used, are very often
assessed much higher proportionately
IMAM properties OF higher value are
assessed. This defect, it seems to me
is due to the wide range of know
ledge, as to values, a good assessor
must have. When you consider that an
assessor must assess real etate and
the Improvement thereon and all the
various classes of personal propertv
ana determine their actual worth for
assessment purposes it is little won
der that assessors fail to make a good
assessment on all classes of Dronerty
| =" 'iio Guilty no TWO assessors
nave used the same standard of
assessment. One assessor assessed
as low as zoe on the dollar, and tho
| assessments range from Toe I'D to 99c.
districts had assessments of 90
per cent and over
districts had assessments between
80 per cent and so per cent.
| districts had assessments of So
per cent and 85 per cent
districts had assessments under
| 80 per cent.
In this connection let me say, that
at the annual meeting of the County
Assessors last April, | emphasized the
value OF an equaliZed assessment. and
tried not to Over-emphasize the true
value assessment. Perhaps, it is be-
| cause of this, that the assessors
| failed to keep their percentage up, al
though in no instance in this county,
did your Supervisor of Assessments
| insist ON an increased valuation in
the assessment, for the purpose of
| increasing the total amount, using
the argument always that it is more
desirable to have the taxes equitably
distributed in accordance with the
actual assessable property owned,
than to have a full value assessment
with poor equalization However, a
true value assessment would make
possible locally equalized assess
} ment much more certain than any
; assessment at less than true value
The result of this new emphasis, |
trust, did result in a better distrbu-
) ton Of the taxes, although much can
yet be done to make better distrbu-
ton Of the tax load
The solution OF assessments seems
to me to be, that all real estate should
! be assessed only once in three or
four years by a competent Board OF
! Assessors, and that values placed
: thereon should remain unchanged for
a fixed period except as to additions
to be added or to be deducted for i'm
prOvementS during the period men
toned. With some such provision
made by law for the proper assess
: ment Of real estate, the local assessor
could then attend to the assessment
!, of personal property with ease anC
= efficiency, and the tax burden be
/ equitably distributed in accordance
with the actual assessabe property
e owned
y The true value Of all assessabl'
y property, real and personal, as de
: termined by our office is $53,451 ,066
S OF this amount 81 per cent or$43.4I5,
/ $4,000 is real estate; the balance onl.
n 10 per cent or $10,135,736 being per
sonal property.
e The relative value of the differen
class OF assessable personal propert!
are illustrated by the following
;, amounts and percentages: ...14 .-