The 2017 Property Tax Assessment Policies and Practices Survey, conducted by the International Association of Assessing Officers, presented 43 questions about property tax assessment systems in the United States and Canada to state/provincial level assessment and/or oversight agencies. The following graphs and maps show results for some of the topics covered in the survey.
Question 4 asked respondents to indicate how staffing in their office has changed since 2012.
The definition of centrally valued property varies by state/province. Question 8 looks at these variations by property type.
The tabs below contain maps showing the breakdown of central and local valuation of each property type by state and province.
Across the United States and Canada, there are variations in how chief officers in assessment take office. Question 9 looks at the breakdown in appointed and elected officers.
Question 13 looked at changes in the volume of formal appeals for centrally assessed properties since 2012.
Each state and province has its own appeal board/council/tribunal responsible for hearing formal appeals on centrally assessed properties. Question 14 asked respondents to indicate if formal training was required.
Question 18 asked respondents to indicate any controls on how property information is accessed by the public.
Question 19 asked respondents to indicate if there had been any changes in records confidentiality laws or practices since 2012.
In some states and provinces, there are limits on increases in assessed value. Question 20 asked respondents to indicate which, if any, property types were affected by such limits in their state/province.
Click the tabs below to see a map of limits on assessed value by state/province.
Across Canada and the United States, each province and state establishes exemptions and/or statutory valuation procedures for different property types. Question 21 inventories the level of exemption by property type.
Click the tabs below to see a map of exemption status by property type in each state/province.
Question 39 asked respondents to indicate if their state/province had a mandate for legally required reassessment cycles, even if local jurisdictions reassessed more frequently.
Question 42 inquired about state/provincial uniform property identification numbering (PIN) systems.