office. In 1959, as a part of my program, the General Assembly enacted
legislation effecting a major reorganization of the administrative machin-
ery for the processing of property assessments. As you all know, this
legislation created the Maryland Tax Court and the Department of
Assessments and Taxation from the old State Tax Commission, thus
separating the administrative and quasi-judicial functions of that State
agency.

Other legislative reforms included provision for two assistant State
supervisors, and, of special interest to you, the improvement of the salary
scale of local assessors.

Accompanying the reorganization of the administrative machinery
was a requirement that an assessment ratio survey be conducted in 1959.
And the General Assembly now has provided legislation which requires
that similar ratio studies be made this year—1962—and at two-year
intervals thereafter. I am informed that the report of the survey of this
year will be made to me and to the Legislative Council within the next
few weeks.

The assessment ratio studies which have been made show a gradual
closing of the gap in the lack of uniformity over the past decade. The
first assessment ratio study in Maryland was made in 1953, under the
sponsorship of the State Tax Commission. Briefly stated, that report
verified facts already known, but not theretofore pin-pointed, that
assessments throughout the State were far from uniform. The range of
assessment ratios from high to low in the twenty-four political sub-
divisions that year varied from 60 per cent in Baltimore City to 25 per
cent in Calvert County.

The next study in 1959 showed that considerable improvement had
been made, in comparison with the findings of the 1953 survey. It
showed a narrowing of the range from the high of 64 per cent in Balti-
more City to 40 per cent in St. Mary's County.

Although the findings in the survey of this year have not yet been
published, it is my understanding that the range has been still further
narrowed—from approximately 60 per cent in Baltimore City to around
50 per cent in the lowest county. This indicates a spread of approxi-
mately 10 percentage points between the highest and lowest subdivisions,
in comparison to the 24 percentage-point spread disclosed in the 1959
survey and the 35 percentage-point spread shown in the survey of 1953.

These results—the results of the positive program adopted in 1959—
are most encouraging to all of us. They show a slow but steady advance-
ment toward our goal of achieving uniformity in assessments.

547