20 CIRCULAR 8 9 9. C. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 



of the Departments of Revenue and Conservation is provided for. In 



Connecticut the town assessors examine land offered for classification 

 and make a sworn statement of the value of the land and of the timber. 

 The approval of the application, however, is made by the State 

 forester after his examination of the land to determine whether re- 

 quirements have been met. In Missouri the application is made to 

 the district forester who conducts the examination and forwards a 

 copy of the application with his recommendations to the Conserva- 

 tion Commission. Final approval rests with the commission. In New 

 York the application filed by the owner with the assessor is approved 

 or disapproved by the Conservation Department. The law contains 

 no provision for examination of the property but in practice every 

 property is examined before a certificate of classification is issued. 



In the laws of six States there are provisions for public hearings. 

 The provision of the Minnesota law has been mentioned above. In 

 Idaho the owner files his application with the State Cooperative Board 

 of Forestry which sets a time and place for public hearing and pub- 

 lishes a notice of the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. 

 The decision of the board of forestry is based on the record of such 

 hearings. The Michigan law requires the Department of Conserva- 

 tion to determine the character of the lands offered for listing and 

 also requires public hearings to be conducted by the department after 

 due notice and publicity. Oregon conducts hearings on lands that 

 have been listed for classification to determine eligibility of the land 

 and to hear objections by the county, the owner, or other interested 

 persons. The same procedure is provided for in the Washington law. 

 but since the law has been administered as a voluntary one. hearings 

 have been conducted only for those lands for which the owner has 

 requested classification. In TViseonsin the Conservation Commission 

 conducts hearings and may make such independent investigation as it 

 sees fit to determine the eligibility of lands for classification. 



An unprejudiced review of applications is essential to the equitable 

 administration of a yield-tax law. Some of the State officials charged 

 with the administration of yield-tax laws have not been very sympa- 

 thetic or active in their administration but there are few. if any. cases 

 in which a State administrator has denied a valid application for the 

 classification of eligible land. On the other hand there has been con- 

 siderable criticism of the administration of yield-tax laws where ap- 

 proval is left to county or town officials. In Massachusetts where the 

 approving authority lies with the assessor many forested towns have 

 classified no land. In Minnesota the county boards have not been 

 sympathetic to the yield-tax principle. The failure of any land to 

 be classified for 14 years after the enactment of the Minnesota yield- 

 tax law is attributed to the action of one county board in refusing 

 the first application presented to it. In Louisiana joint approval of 

 the forestry commission and police jury of the parish is required. In 

 practice the police jury determines the value at which the land will be 

 assessed during the contract period. Since this is usually the factor 

 determining the advantage in classification, the police jury can dis- 

 courage entry of land- under the yield-tax law-. In recent years the 

 police juries are said to have established land values for classified land 

 that are as high as the assessment of land and timber would be under 

 the general property tax. 



