as between different classes of property throughout the entire township, which consists of four fractional townships around the shores of Burt and Mullet lakes, the acreage is 22,402 acres and about the shores of the lakes mentioned there is over $100,000 worth of resort property. A preliminary examination showed that the allegations in the complaint were substantially correct and that a complete reassessment of the township was necessary to correct the errors that existed. Every description of real estate liable to taxation was examined and valued.

Testimony of taxpayers was taken on the day of review and the Board in its final determination fixed the assessment of the Township at $282,005. The amount returned by the local officers being $159,570.

The complaint of Marion R. Pickands alleged that the assessment of property owned by her in the fourth ward of the city of Cheboygan was much in excess of similar property in the same ward and more than cash value; after an inspection of this property and consideration of testimony offered, the Board reduced the assessment from $3,000 to $2,200.

1910.

St. Johns, June 22, 1910, on complaint of Thomas H. Clark a tax payer of St. Johns City, alleging illegal assessments on specific descriptions of real estate in said city. The Board, after inspection of the properties described in the complaint and taking testimony relative to the value of the same fixed the aggregate cash values of said properties at $33,000. The supervisors and local board of reviews' valuation was $20,100.

An

Traverse City, June 29, 1910, on complaint filed with the Board alleging discriminations, or under-valuations in the assessment of all properties within the city for the present year. Preliminary examinations disclosed these complaints to be well founded. The assessing districts of this city comprise five wards with an area of four and one-half sections or 2880 acres. The population of the city is about twelve thousand. examination and appraisal was made of each description of real estate within the city. Sworn statements procured from each owner of personal property liable to taxation, and a personal examination and appraisal was made of all tangible personal property. Upon the two days of the review many owners of taxable property appeared and gave testimony and after due consideration of the evidence presented and the appraisals, that had been made the Board fixed and determined the cash value of all the property in the city to be $7,777,558. The assessed value as determined by the local officers was $4,667,469; this shows an increased valuation of $3,110,089.

Midland, Mich., Sept. 16, 1910. On complaint of the Dow Chemical Company, and other taxpayers of the City of Midland, a reassessment of the city was ordered, and the same method of inspection and appraisal employed as at Traverse City.

The Board, after considering the evidence offered on the day of review and the appraisals made, fixed the cash value of the city at $1,528,785, an increase from the local assessment of $633,060.

Northport, Mich., Sept. 27, 1910. On complaint of David H. Scott that the assessment of the township of Leelanau in Leelanau County was irregular and unlawful by reason of intentional and undervaluation of

properties were not equitably assessed, the allegations in the complaint were, upon investigation, found to be so far true that a reassessment of the township was ordered.

This township consists of four fractional towns. The eastern boundary is Grand Traverse Bay, the northern and part of the western boundary being lake Michigan. It contains 27,614 acres of assessable property, and has over $250,000 of what is known as resort property. The village of Northport, with a population of five hundred, is also within the township, also eight plats or sub-divisions of summer resort property. ·

The examinations and appraisal of this township included personal inspection of every description of real estate, and all tangible personal property.

Such taxpayers as desired to be heard were present at the review and gave testimony relative to the value of their respective properties. The Board, after consideration of the evidence offered and the appraisals made, fixed the cash value of the township at $1,024,385, an increase of $685,940 from the amount fixed by the local assessing officers.

Charlevoix, September 29, 1910, on complaint of R. N. Gibbons, of the township of St. James, in Charlevoix county, that discrimination had been made in the assessment of properties in that township, and that the Board of Review had held no meeting in said township, for the year 1910 as required by law. A reassessment of all property in the township was ordered. This township consists of the northern part of Big Beaver Island and eight smaller islands adjacent thereto. The total acreage is 6,680 acres. The village of St. James is also situated in the township. The same methods of examination and appraisal were employed as in Leelanau township. Testimony of taxpayers was taken on the day of review and after careful consideration of all facts presented and ap praisals made the cash value of this township was fixed at $149,820. The assessed value fixed by the supervisor was $127,290.

Hancock, October 1, 1910. This review was held for the purpose of considering facts which had come to the knowledge of the Board tending to show that a large amount of personal property in the shape of mortgage credits had been omitted from the assessment rolls in the four wards of the city of Hancock, Houghton County. Commissioner Shields conducted the review. After listening to all the evidence presented and due consideration of the same, it was determined that there should be added to the said assessment rolls in each of said wards, amounts aggregating $41,480, and the additions were so made.

Mt. Pleasant, October 3, 1910, on complaint of Lewis P. Riley that certain personal property in the township of Union, Isabella County, had been greatly undervalued by the local assessing officers for the year . 1910. On the day of the review testimony of the complainant and the person against whose property complaint had been made were taken, and after consideration of the facts presented, Commissioner Thompson the acting member of the Board, fixed the actual value of the property under consideration at $12,000. The assessed valuation of local assessing offi cers was $600.

Kalkaska, October 4, 1910, on complaint of the Prosecuting Attorney of Kalkaska County relative to the assessment of property in the township of Excelsior in said County. This township had been reassessed and the valuation fixed on review by the Board in 1909, at $602,726. The

3

complainant alleged that the Supervisor and Board of Review in the township had materially and intentionally reduced its assessed value below that determined by the Board in the year previous, and that in so doing they had wilfully discriminated against certain classes of property. A preliminary examination showing these allegations to be correct. A reexamination of the townships was made previous to the day of review, and after listening to the testimony given by taxpayers, and the report of said re-examination on the day of hearing, the Board fixed the cash value of the township at $580,565. The assessed valuation of the same by the local officers was $420,800. The decrease in value of $22.161 from the amount fixed by the board in 1909 was due to the fact that standing timber had been cut and removed from the township between the assessment period of 1909 and 1910.

Public hearings for the purpose of reviewing assessment rolls, has constituted only a part of the duties performed by the Board in the matter of supervising the work of the assessing officers of the State during the past two years. Numerous complaints regarding the assessment of properties in different parts of the State, ranging from small holdings of individual taxpayers to the entire assessments of townships and cities have been investigated by the members of the Board and the Secretary. In many cases a settlement of the matters complained of was made without the necessity of a public hearing.

During the present year complaints were received from three townships and one city, which, upon investigation, were found to warrant a general reassessment, but owing to the late date on which they were received, it was found impossible to complete the work prior to the second Monday in October with the limited number of assistants available for this kind of work.

The collection of data for the use of the State Board of Equalization, in the city of Jackson, during the early months of 1910, indicated that the assessment of that city was at a low valuation and very irregular. The assessing officers of this city were interviewed and urged to correct these errors in the assessment for the present year. When the local Board of Review met, it became evident that the desired results had not been obtained.

An application was made by the Jackson Board of Review to this Board for assistance in reviewing the assessment rolls of the city. The Board assigned for this purpose the examiner who had collected the data above mentioned, and as a result, most of the irregularities were corrected and an increase of $4,000,000 added to the assessed valuation of the city.

Complaint was also made to the Board of the irregularities in the assessment of bank stock in the county of St. Clair. The complaint alleged that considerable amounts of this class of property was assessed in the townships adjacent to the City of Port Huron that should properly have appeared upon the rolls of that city. After a consultation by members of the Board and the Secretary with the assessing officers and owners of the stock, this matter was adjusted in compliance with the law without a formal review.

timber lands, wild lands, villages, and farm property in the township of Duncan, Houghton county, which consists of nearly five surveyed towns or 112,655 acres. No review was held in this township as the local Board of Review at its session so equalized the valuations that the complaint on which the investigations were made was withdrawn.

The township of Baraga in Baraga county was also quite thoroughly examined in the summer of 1909. This township consists of 107,448 acres and contains the village of Baraga with a population of about eleven hundred.

The complaint in this case was made by a corporation which alleged that illegal and intentional discriminations had been made against its property by the assessing officer of the township.

A review was not ordered in this case for the reason that the results of the investigation made did not sustain the facts alleged in the complaint.

THE AVERAGE RATE.

The Board is convinced that a situation of great gravity confronts the people of Michigan at the present time regarding the problem of "equal taxation." An equitable equilibrium must be established between the taxation of the different classes of property. Under our system of an average rate of taxation measuring the share of the public burden to be borne by certain specified properties and all the different rates, depending on the necessities of eighty-three counties and over seventeen hundred taxation districts within this state, measuring the share to be borne by all other properties, the utmost vigilance and integrity, and best business capacity must be exercised to prevent inequality and injustice in levying such taxes as are necessary for a proper administration of State and other municipal affairs.

The most important step in this direction is to secure proper basis on which to levy the different sums that go to make up the aggregate taxes for state, county, school and municipal uses. The law clearly defines what this basis shall be, namely, "Cash value" of all property liable to taxation.

This method is the best for two reasons. First, because it is the law, second, because it is the simplest as no percentage of cash value can be determined unless the cash value is first ascertained. We might add another reason and that is: No other method is just or equitable under our present system.

To illustrate: In a certain township it is necessary to raise for the public needs $500. If the property to be taxed is worth $100,000 and assessed at cash value the rate is five mills and the owner of $1,000 worth of taxable property, would be taxed $5. If the assessment is made at 50 per cent of cash value, then the tax roll would show a rate of ten mills on the dollar. The man who in the first instance was assessed at $1,000 would now be assessed at $500 and his tax would be $5, the same as before.

An adjoining township needs to raise $600. The value of it is $60,000 and it is so assessed. The rate would then be ten mills on the dollar and the tax would be $10 on property worth $1,000. If the property in the township is assessed at 40 per cent of the cash value or $24,000 the tax rate would be twenty-five mills on the dollar, the property worth $1,000 assessed at $400 and the tax would be $10, just the same.

It is evident then, that, as to the local needs of these two townships the amount of tax paid by the individual property owners is not changed whether the assessment is at cash value or any percentage thereof. This is because the tax to be raised is a fixed, determined amount before any rate is struck.

Let us suppose that there is certain property situated in both these townships that must be assessed by a board of assessors and a tax levied according to the average rate of taxation of the townships, which is determined by adding together the assessed valuation, and taxes of the