THEODORE R. MCKELDIN, GOVERNOR 1871

1/3 of the area would be so treated. It should be noted that
this proposed legislation is open to the same objection of
continuing inequality among the various parts of a local
subdivision, as in the case of the present five year system.
The only difference proposed is one of degree, i. e. the lag in
reassessing all portions of an entire local subdivision would
be three years instead of five years. Nevertheless, under
the provisions of House Bill No. 13, at least 1/3 of a given
area would always be subjected to different assessment
treatment and in all probability pay a larger amount of
taxes proportionately than the areas thereafter to be reas-
sessed.

It has been said that the bill is necessary in order to
furnish a constantly increasing tax base to permit future
local bond issues. This presupposes that reassessments
must and will always produce increases in existing assess-
ments. In a period of high values this is undoubtedly true,
but the converse may well follow. Furthermore, the present
law authorizes reassessment of the entire area in a one or
two year period.

It is also contended that new or newly improved property
cannot be assessed after the provisions of the present law
become effective on January 1, 1954. I find nothing in the
existing law which can possibly prevent adding such
property to the assessment base.

Further, it is claimed that the inability to use the ro-
tational system of assessment will require a rise in local tax
rates. I believe that the people have long since progressed
beyond the point where an increase in assessment while
holding down the tax rate, in any way misleads them.
Taxpayers are interested in the total amount of their tax
bill, whatever formula may be used to arrive at the burden
imposed upon them. Under the existing law which will
become effective on January 1, 1954, at the end of the five
year rotational system, all parts of each local subdivision
will at least theoretically be on an equal basis. One-third of
each area will then be appraised each year for three years,
with all of the reassessment notices being sent out in the
third year. In this manner, equality will be preserved. As
I have pointed out above, the three year period for reassess-
ment is a maximum and any local subdivision can reassess
its entire area and make such assessments effective in a one
year or two-year period, if desired.

The Attorney General has advised me that the bill is
unconstitutional because the House and the Senate passed
different versions of the bill. Aside from the fact that the
constitutional issue seems clear to me, I do not feel that this
is a question which can be left for determination of the