xt798s4jq11p https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt798s4jq11p/data/mets.xml Arkansas United States. Work Projects Administration (Ark.) Arkansas. Department of Education. 1937 4 p. l., 70 (i.e. 71) numb. l. incl. tables, forms, diagrs. 28 cm. UK holds archival copy for ASERL Collaborative Federal Depository Program libraries. Call Number HJ4190 .A27 1937 books English Little Rock, State Dept. of Education This digital resource may be freely searched and displayed in accordance with U. S. copyright laws. Arkansas Works Progress Administration Publications Real property tax -- Arkansas Tax exemption Real property -- Arkansas Homestead Valuation Survey, Arkansas. W.P.A. Project No. 165-63-6001 text Homestead Valuation Survey, Arkansas. W.P.A. Project No. 165-63-6001 1937 1937 2019 true xt798s4jq11p section xt798s4jq11p seiiiéiﬂéﬁiiﬁﬁié5"];H M; .'.» . ‘
V " , é€¥ﬂ§£¥§35§g M Jriiw ‘
12:1; MW x ‘ '
5; szt-E‘P’Eédw -: .- 42‘?” "$4
Jilﬁih'j’gﬁ‘é‘ﬁm I/
W H: l " - + ~ *
"M W b ‘ ‘1‘ ' E 0" A“? KAN 5A5
' 1 1‘ ’
“WM :
WW4:
‘ f
a. f
\
\‘ s
, 3
g: ' - *
iiiiiiéifzu 3:235 . 11"? "
..223112‘5321 1:1. ‘ — 'TI'3’,
v 5 5f i; 3333:; j: _ ‘7' E:
j, ' ...—...
V 1
. J
i555‘???"ii : 4 ‘
v . Ugﬁﬁuﬁvﬁf \“ J
1: wiinR‘w‘“ an?“ ham“; ‘
_ (I. '— ,
3;. > HJ , '22 1 AT E DEDA QTME N T (Di: E D UK. A T iON ‘J .
‘4190 W. BPHJDDS .. COl’vih/HfgsnONEQ I ’
‘15. .A2 1 " “ ' " ' “
. f 19377 LJ ,. z Lt. .QOOC.‘ K». ARK/x Nip/3x5 /
A 9-5" . ‘ .. 77 7
s , , /
- ' ' ' ’

 . ' ‘ 7- 7‘ V V _, 7 " ' " , <> > —» --— ”Marv—nu
1 L
§
5-
/
, ,. f g
""V ,_.. , M' ‘ ~x.. :-
2 2“ ‘~. A- 3"“; Agsrywmjx’w/x j
3 F
., ‘ J t, - g . .3 J
_ fur «. H . ' h . 1
. , e." . f
, ‘. _ . 2
Q‘
? ‘
[c b
f
I ‘
,5"
:., 'v
%_; _ I
i.‘
3‘
.»
v\ ‘-
I' , t,
"I. \
,
l ‘
‘ ,
S
‘V‘ I
i .
_ i
,
\ :
\. _
‘x ‘
Q .

 .1; _ - , 44-4. , .n, ... _ p;- -~-—‘ . -. ._ 1'- » ._, ‘4 4.1.344. -. . ."“_'~'"V via/"Mm" v-‘W’vF‘V'V” "r“errﬁ'wfrgwfl‘be; w-‘Q
{5.337713 ' ~ . «,1
~?\';’ ‘ . _
“(‘4 .1125- ,

—;;:-'.:<-'1i"4’.“-3 .
4.. HOMESTEAD VALUATION SURVEY ..
’ ,

i9 21%

‘5 ARKANSAS

57‘

359? W. P. A. PROJECT N0. 165-65-6001 ,
..,_-ry .{ V. ,1 I 6‘ ..

5 - 1.113345% .- :
-~4 1449.“. MA.» Ir

1455441. 51 341.5. A 54.24

,, In Km 5.4.5 .1454er .4:- 8;; 67789719 71- 4%
2:157 :24 , v 4 3
444
"444-: 5%
Eoé‘iiﬁt’ **
2:455
4‘”?
2;:
£75 2
2:4 STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ‘
7:43;: . - -

434— W. E. Phipps, Commemoner .
Jig ’ Little Rock, Arkansas ;
“i 1957 '-:
3:52»: w :
(ii—1” ' ;
e?- 2 3:3 2:: 531.5

:23: - 7231-, ..Ap N
, Z .44: .44]:

 {h , , 7 _'- '32:" _ . , .._, ‘ -2 7 . ,.. ‘_. «~— I- » a _ ‘ ~.- , ‘ ““ ’ . ' - - - ,
g3; ‘ kg 336.22 Ar48 E
't" United States. Work Projects ;;
E Homestead valuation survey, A ' . i
‘3\. HJ4190 .A27 1937 ' '
AA“ ,_ / ‘
L; U v
'2
5 - j as
'3‘ ‘ j 01
,2" . t1

”a? {TX-’5 I '_f'fifei‘; I5.31..-a:m35":~'335-1-3335 f]

w:

2% . 01

'

.- 5? t1
Viv" 1 O:
T]
e . W‘
$23.33. ‘
LEW t'
5‘. ‘1
Si , 24.:- ‘. . A
$§§f£ , , , -,‘ ‘ ‘ J ‘ 'l '1 ' - ~ ~ ' ‘ '

. 0
we? 0‘
°3
1,31 t‘

j . ‘ s.
1 m
" . g
.17? . °

5 if?“- B
&‘
ﬁg“
‘
‘9. #53.
i1” ' ' ‘“
ﬂ" “5*
“iii; .
:9 ; ' y 7.1"”; ’3. 1‘9 3; .:.. H :1
. z, ~ .. . . - ‘1
‘ ' ‘33:; ‘ .. -,1 , - l“
; . 5‘1?“ ' " 3
\‘iffE-i; . . . . . .. . ~
\iai; - , 2 g :; 3,31,2i :
::
~~ 3; ~:: . : :

 , _‘ ,, _.. , p H, _§§§
1 .
' . - FOREWORD .
‘ ~ The Hemestead Valuation Survey was undertaken in an effort to determine
as accurately as possible the relation of homesteads to the taxable property
A of the State. For a number of years prior to the inception of this project
there had been considerable discussion relative to the exemption of homesteads
from taxation. Unfortunately no one was able to give an accurate estimate as
to the ratio of assessed value of homesteads to the total assessed valuation
. of the state. The Hemestead Valuation Survey was made in order to determine
this information. .
. Operating as a W. P. A. Project under the regulations of the Works Pro—
gress Administration and under the sponsorship of the State Commissioner of
Education, the Survey assumed the gigantic task of determining the homesteads
of the State and tabulating information concerning their acreage and value.
The supervisory staff worked under the handicap of changing personnel but tf/
'held strictly to their task. Unfortunately, the survey was too great to come ‘ ,
plete prior to the 1957 session of the General Assembly, but sufficient data
were available prior to the opening of the session to indicate rather closely
the information necessary for determination of amounts necessary to replace
losses to be sustained through the exemption of homesteads.
Without the financial aid of the W. P. A. and the friendly cooperation
of the W. P. A. Officials and workers assigned to the project, the Survey ,
could not have been made. Acknowledgment should be made for the friendly co- 5
Operation of the various state and county officials, school directors and i
teachers, and thousands of sympathetic laymen in rendering assistance to the i
supervisors and workers of the project. Further acknowledgment should be
made to Crawford Greene, of the Department of Education staff, who had
general direction of the Survey, H. H. Jacoway, who was supervisor-in-charge
of the Survay, and H. L. Lessenberry, W. I. Ages, 1. L. Watson, Harold E.
Branch, and Curtis Williams, who acted as district supervisors during all or g
a part of the survey. f
W. E. Phipps, 3
, Commissioner of Education. 1
- 435 7
1E\ ;
«5
”(a
141'
l
1

 TABLE OF CONTENTS \;
: V Page
1. Nature of the Study........................................... 1
Designation of Project..................;.................. I 1
1 Project Directors.......................................... 1 3
thi‘ L Scope of the Project....................................... 1 !
riff . Definitions................................................ 2 ;
: l” Basic Facts Studied........................................ 2
‘11. Procedure.................................................. 2
~ ‘ II. Findings of the Surveys....................................... 4
gilt Number and Value of Homesteads............................. 4
lie; Assessed Valuation and School Taxes......................¢. 5
I;::; Estimated Loss and Revenues from Homestead Exemption....... 9
;;£oi Estimated Less from Local School Taxes..................... 9
_ ‘ V Estimated Loss from the Three Mill State School Tax........ 10
:éugl Estimated Revenue and Losses of Various State Funds........ 10
i:::: Acreage in Homesteads...................................... 10
r Probable Additional Losses 11
I: 3: III. History of Homestead Exemptions............................... 12
:;:ai Homestead Exemption in Other States........................ 12 1
Estimates of Loss in Arkansas and Other States............. 13 .
IV. Homestead Exemption in Arkansas............................... 15
Act 247 of 1957............................................ 15
Commission Regulations..................................... 16 ,
Types of Affidavits.................;...................... l6 ,
Act 154 of193'7 l6 "
Act 242 of 1957............................................ 17 ‘
Addenda,.................................................., 17
V. Appendix...................................................... 51 i

 '1 ' -
‘ ; TABLES ._
§ Table No: Title Page
'3 i .
g 1. Number of Urban and Rural Homesteads in Arkansas.Counties
i According to their Range in Value and Per Cent of Each Type.... 51 1
" . 1
- g II. Number of Homesteads in Arkansas Cities (2,500 or More I
E Population*) According to their Range in Value................. 47_
E III. Assessed Valuation for Ad Valoren Taxes for 1956 in Arkansas
1 Counties, Estimated Loss in Assessed Valuation on Basis of Ex-
' emption on Homesteads up to-El,000 and $2,500 Valuations, and A
9~ Per Cent Of LOSSOIIOOI‘.O.I...IO...CODOIOIDOOIIO‘SIODOOIIOIOOOOO 55
7:1? .j IV. Assessed Valuation for Ad Valorem Taxes for 1956 in Arkansas
- Cities, Estimated Loss in Assessed valuation on Basis of Exempt—
: ion of Hbmesteads up to $1,000 and $2,500 Valuations, and Per
Cent of LOSSIIOIOOIOIOOOOIDIDOICOOIIOOOOOOOOCIIIOOOUIOOOOCO'OUI 58
V. Estimated Revenue of Arkansas Counties from State Ad Valorem
_ Taxes on Basis of 1955 Assessments, Estimated Loss in Revenue
on Basis of Exemptions of Homesteads up to $1,000 and $2,500
Valuations, and Per cent of LOSS-oncococoooocoanc-oensues-.0... 59
VI. Estimated Loss in 1956 Taxes to Local School Districts in
‘ Arkansas Counties on Basis of Exemption of Homesteads up to
. $1,000 and $2,500 Valuations and Per Cent Loss is of Estimated
; Revenue from Local School TaXeSIOt¢CIIOODOOIOIOOIQIIOOIOCOJOOOI 61 :
'
VII. Estimated Loss in 1956 Taxes to Arkansas City School Districts J
t on Basis of Exemption of Homesteads up to $1,000 and $2,500 ,
Valuations, and Per Cent Less is of Estimated Revenue from.Local J
i ‘l, School Taxes in these Districts...c...o.....-.---.............. 64: I
VIII. Estimated Loss in State Three Mill School Taxes for 1956 in
Arkansas Counties on Basis of Exemption of Homesteads up to
$1,000 and $2,500 Valuations and Per Cent Loss is of Estimated
‘ Revenue from the Three Mill Tax................................ 65
M ”.H IX. Estimated Revenue from Ad Valorem Taxes for State Purposes for
y 1956 According to Various Funds with Estimated Loss and Per Cent
of Loss from Exemption of Property up to $1,000 and $2,500 5
Valuations...OOIOOOICOOOI0.0.0....DIODDOOOOOODOIIIIOIOIIOIIOQI. 68 ;
I
t X. Number of Homesteads, Acreage, and Average Acreage by Counties. 69 [
XI. Number of Urban Homesteads, Acreage, and Average Acreage in I
Arkansas City School Districts................................. 70 i
i
CHARTS I
I. Rates of Exemptable Property within $1,000 Limitation to
' ‘1‘? ‘ Assessed Valuation in Arkansas COImtieSIoco-ocoonoccoco-cocoon. 6 j
: II. Per Cent of Losses in Assessed Valuation that would result
, from Exemption of Homesteads up to $1,000 Valuation............ 8 ,
? i

 ,1, _.. , 1,- . 4,3§\
' . I
' l
i I. NATURE or THE SURVEY
For a number of years prior to 1956 there was a great deal of discussion ,
‘elative to the exemption of homesteads from taxation. Inevitably the discus-
”2' ion led to the probable effect upon various governmental agencies of the re- .
1., 'oval of homesteads from the tax rolls. would such a situation seriously ,
.,jf_g Viamper the operation of various institutions through the reduction of revenue? is
. .1; ’L In order to ascertain the probable results of homestead exemption Com- f
.7,” ~i'issioner of Education W.E. Phipps in 1955 applied for a WOrks Progress !
"‘ - hdministration project to make a study of homesteads in Arkansas and attempt j‘
_1 . to determine the effect of exemption of homesteads from taxation to the extent
,Vwi: wiﬁpf $1,000 and $2,500, respectively. It was proposed that the project be g1
j" sponsored by the State Department of Education and that it operate under the 3,
5': direction of the Department.
g Designation of Project 7
.18 § Commissioner Phipps' application received favorable action and the project i
fﬂ' has officially approved the latter part of 1955. The project was known of-
“ iicially as the Homestead Valuation Survey. It was designated as Official
4 Project No. 65-65—5596, WOrk Project No. 1778—1 to 8, Type of Work Symbol 1871.
'f ~3 She central headquarters of the project were located in the State Capitol in
' little Rock. I
i E The project began operating on January 15, 1956 and continued until ‘
T Detober 8, 1956. However, on October 9 an extension of the project wasapproved
"V ﬁnd the project reopened on October 12 as Official Project No. 165-65-6001,
Work Project No. 5120-1 to 6, Type of Work Symbol No. 1871. The project con-
ﬁinued until the fall of 1957.
4 : Project Directors
E Commissioner Phipps designated Crawford Greene, Director of the Division '
jof Information and Research, of the State Department of Education, as general ?
gsupervisor of the project. The following persons were named as supervisors of j;
. jthe several W. P. A. districts of the state: Districts six and seven, J. L. W
9 T éwatson, of Jacksonville, who was later succeeded by Harold E. Branch, of ;}
Murfreesboro, who in turn was succeeded by Curtis W. Williams of Little Rock; ‘
Districts one and eight, H. L. Lessenberry, of wynne; Districts four and five,
1w. I. Ages, of Clarksville; Districts two and three, H. H. Jacoway, of Little
. ﬁROCk. Mr. Jacoway also acted as Central Office Supervisor, remaining as pro-
» Eject supervisor to the completion of the project.
, 1 Scope of the Project 1
3 In order to give a complete picture of the situation in the state with f
Erespect to homesteads it was decided to make a thorough study of the tax rolls ‘
:of each county to determine the number of homesteads and the assessed valuation .
fof each. Accordingly, plans were made to place workers in the offices of each
étax assessor in the state, a force of ninety-three persons being required for
:this purpose. ;
i These workers were selected from the W.P.A. rolls in the respective 3
,icounties. Before entering upon their duties they were trained for their work ;
{by the district supervisors of the project. 2 2:2:‘:,: 7;: : - g
I :: ,

 ‘ ‘?;.:94T-—I " "“ ’ H ~~"'"‘ ' "‘ ' "' -- - > , , - .. .. . ‘ W"\
‘ . i
» , 2 4
E In each county the work was organized on the basis of the school districts, J
tabulations being made to Show the number of homesteads, the value of the home- ;
T _ tteads, and the effect upon school revenues that would be occasioned by the
T i ‘ €“lxemption of homesteads to the extent of $1,000 and $2,500 assessed valuation.
' i The tabulations of the various school districts were forwarded to the
~ =59bffices of the several supervisors, after which they Were sent to the central ;
hffice in Little Rock. There the reports were checked, analyzed, and summar- V
‘ sized by a force of twenty persons working under the direction of Mr. Jacoway.
,_' j Definitions
. :E "“"“"“
., ,. .4 The Homestead Valuation Survey was based upon the definition of homesteads
., ; “given in the Constitution of Arkansas, Article IX, Sections 4 and 5.
"” '7) Section 4: "The homestead outside any city, town or village owned and
nccupied as a residence, shall consist of not exceeding 160 acres of land with
improvements thereon, to be selected by the owner provided the same Shall not
exceed in value the sum of twonty~five hundred dollars and in no event shall ‘
'. ‘ _ fthc homestead be reduced to less than eighty acres, without regard to value".
; _w :gf Section 5: "The homestead in any city, town or village, owned and occue
_~ . .‘.¢mied as a residence shall consist of not exceeding one acre of land with the
.,__j., improvements thereon, to be selected by the owner, provided the same shall not
‘3 'm..,gexceed in value the sum of twenty—five hundred dollars, and in no event shall
lsuch homestead be reduced to a quarter of an acre of land without regard to
5 W. Walue".
: ... 35} Basic Facts Studied .
0',?.:.:}. The information regarding homesteads was tabulated on basis of the follow—
iﬂ"_4_;;ing factors:
1. A limitation in case of rural property of 160 acres of land and the
~actual assessed value of home and outbuildings.
..3‘; ' 2. A limitation in case of urban property of one acre of land and the
.H¢ 3 .gactual assessed value of home and outbuildings. -
.417..:;-‘ 5. Residence upon the property by owner.
in;1~T‘ 4. The losses in taxes that would result in exemption of homesteads to
.-n¢::mw;the extent of $1,000 and $2,500 of assessed valuation, respectively.
.7," I 1 211228812
ijy"ffff After due consideration of the possible methods of making an analysis of
””' "‘ “the homestead situation it was decided that accurate results could be obtained
Ionly from an inspection of the individual assessment sheets in each county.
.Accordingly the assistance of the various county clerks and tax assessors was
. ,. ‘ enlisted. These officials gave splendid cooperation to the W. P. A. workers
flit W_ yin the Various counties.
:.; ”.‘ It was necessary to determine the homestead of each individual landowner ,
."q e’g in order to secure an accurate picture of the homestoad situation in the state.
'."3The following represents a summary of the procedure followed by the county
Fworkers in the survey:
The official county map, showing townships, school districts, and city or
,H. ,town limits was studied in order that the worker might become familiar with the
r ,;,~various political subdivisions of the county. ;¢¢:3 ,.:*;:;

 . i
l _ 3 3
-~ E . a
‘ -;+ 4?
, i For each school district in the county an alphabetical list of all f
w~‘ uproperty owners was prepared, the list being divided according to urban ' 1
jar rural areas. (Urban areas were considered to be cities in which there i
tresided a population of 2,500 or more, according to the last federal census.) ;;
»-§0pposite each preperty owner was listed the assessed value of the property 31
. . {including the value of all improvements. 3
, t ‘1
i After these lists were prepared it was necessary to determine which of 't
ithe properties represented homesteads and which were not homesteads. This j
ﬁtask was simple or complex, depending upon the information available at the g
"“' icourthouse. The general procedure followed was to examine the assessment ;
'"':Y”isheets to determine whether or not the taxpayer was a resident or non-resi- F
45,3: gdent. Since, in many instances no address was given on the assessment sheet, ;
Ifﬂgv,gthe worker was forced to rely upon such indications as the assessment of C
pr.f,;§personal property and whether the signature was that of the owner or an agent 4
‘1; giégfor the owner. Q
1 , ‘i
”'MNI'i Following this it was necessary to use a variety of sources in an effort !
:?'~3 to identify the homesteads. Obviously the first persons consulted were the g
c TH idcounty officials who were at hand and easily available to the workers, such W
1*'*“¢*das the county assessors, county clerks, county judges, county surveyors, ﬂ
rm siﬂncircuit clerks, county agents, and county examiners. other reliable sources ﬂ
A=WW “def information in this respect were local abstract companies, real estate t
'“Wmﬁmgents, banks, superintendents of schools, insurance agencies, the Home Owners 1
loan Corporation representatives, and the Federal Housing Administration 1
puthorities. ‘
V*:?3 EL When the desired information was not obtainable from such sources dupli— ‘
i. ‘5‘ cats lists of the landowners were sent to the presidents or secretaries of "
Ls; ﬁﬂuhhe school districts, or the lists were checked by residents of the respective ‘
histricts or other persons familiar with residents of the districts. Failure ‘
; ,* bf the above sources to supply the necessary information necessitated direct ‘
my ,inmpommunication with the property owner who was asked to designate his homestead. §
, 1, in some cases special forms were passed out to school children with the re-' 1
" ‘”‘ guest that their parents fill in the indicated information and return to the i
f‘ l Tu. teaCher. “,
In all cases workers were directed to continue their work until they had
bbtained authentic information pertaining to the property owners and home- ;
i h steeds in each local school district. ‘
'fﬁf;” ﬁj Following the attainment of information relative to the property that
”*fFf ﬂiiandowners considered as their homesteads the alphabetical lists were revised I
3 V‘:”ffto include only the homesteads with the name of the owner and the value of
“f‘ffzﬁ the preperty listed as the homestead. ‘ .5
pp 3 These lists were transferred to work sheets on which the loss in school
.."K.]n.tevenue for both the state three mill school tax and the local district school
rp;:w5,n}ax Were determined in event of exemption of homesteads to the extent of
1.. ,.;..‘,;oth $1,000 and $2,500. ' ‘
:;;ni' The totals for the various districts were determined and tabulated into ;
.:~u'fcrﬂounty reports. These county tables were later tabulated into reports for ;
:.;,gmxvﬁhe entire state. i

 E,
. , .5 4 5,
II. FINDINGS OE‘TBE SURVEY ' ' %
,-.~..,:-') . % ‘
fij, f The Work sheets from the various counties were checked by the central %%
}3fﬁf%office force after which they were referred to other workers for the purpose 3%
'1I.:;%of making tabulations to indicate different phases of the situation with re- 55
ﬁﬂff H,spect to homesteads of the state. 55
H
"‘“‘ '5 At various times during the survey, particularly just before the meeting ;5
,, 50f the General Assembly in January 1937, Progress Reports covering the data jﬂ
ff::_ 5tabulated for all completed districts were made. These reports served as a ‘H
"* ghasis for the legislation being prepared for the General Assembly. At the 5
.f _ 35genegal election in November 1956 there was adopted an amendment to the 5
:f'f"“oons££tution of Arkansas providing for the exemption from all state taxes of Ti
3; "”%homesteads up to one thousand dollars assessed value. The amendment provided _%
fW“_f'%that such exemption should not take place until funds to replace those to be 15
”j"'njlost by exemption had been provided from other sources. Consequently it was %”
W*"i”jnecessary to determine as accurately as possible the amount needed for the %%
” ‘“' freplacement funds. The preliminary findings of the survey were of value in i5
,,‘, émaking these calculations. %
Jg'lgfi The consistency of the ratios of estimated loss from one Progress Report %
_f’ bfﬁto another is shown by the following summary of the several Reports which '1
ff":l;:jgives the number of school districts completed and the estimated percentage of 3
’ ‘jjf4loss from the return of the three mill state school tax and local school tax 1
_1 *;~fon exemptions of both one thousand and twenty-five hundred dollars of assessed 3
p‘,fi““%value: 1
J :2. 5
'. 1.;'..!~:5 5
. l 1%
[‘77 .r Per Cent at State School Tax Per Cent of-Local School Tax §
5"”_”%Report Districts - to be Lost by Exemption of to be Lost by Exemption of j
g“ No. Completed $1,000 ‘ , 52,50g $1,000 52,500 5
“f“fg 1 512 15.60 15.51 14.45 16.69 , 1
~ 2 904 15.01 17.89 14.89 17.72 i
5 1,108 14.90 16.56 15.55 17.00 ,1
4 1,669 15.85 18.12 12.94 18.90 .
5 2,185 16.16 18.22 15.52 18.55
6 2,865 16.01 17.71 16.61 18.48 .
,4 , ‘ 7 5,095 16.30 18.59 16.32 18.19
8 5,150 16.57 18.59 16.40 18.65 %
1 3'0” Number and Value of Homesteads %
’“"’%l,, Arkansas in 1936 had a total of 171,441 homesteads of which 58,058, or 22 i
:7” fJTHper cent, were in urban centers (cities of 2,500 or more population*), and of §‘
';‘*ifinhich 135,583, or 78 per Cent, were in rural areas (Table I, Appendix).
_, Of the 171,441 homesteads in the state 25,667, or 14.15 per cent, were
;f~jirn%assessed at $100 or less; 36,081, or 21.58 per cent, were assessed from $101
337;",th 5200; 29,198, or 17.25 per cent, from $201 to 5500; 21,947, or 12.85 per ;
j:ﬂ”;f“ﬂ§cent, from $501 to $400 and 14,977, or 8.68 per cent, from $401 to $500.
5: f”{f1meince Eureka Springs is a city of the first class it was included in the
‘Tf:.%i‘j urban centers although its population was less than 2,500. ‘

 ,ﬂ %
. 5 ¥
& only 8.08 per cent of the 171,441 homesteads in the state were assessed '
. at more than $1,000. The land area of the 171,441 homesteads embraced i
4 7,829,280 acres or an average of forty—five acres per homestead. These home- %
, 'g steeds had an assessed valuation of $77,035,313 or an average of approximately a
‘i i $450 per homestead. ?
E t u.
, - 1 The number and percentage of homesteads in urban centers and their range :1
' E in value is shown in Table II. The number of homesteads in the forty—nine Wt
* 'w 2 cities of Arkansas ranged from none in Crossett to 7,266 in Little Rock. The HJ
*5 viii entire urban property in Crossett belongs to a single corporation, as the re— W
4*?-=¥é sult of which there are no homesteads. The range in value of urban homesteads ‘i
“~3 I»{ is somewhat higher than in the state as a whole as is indicated by the follow— E
~ if“ 1 ing percentage distribution of homesteads according to value: 5.20 per cent j?
-¥53§*@ ranged in value from $1 to $100; 9.60 per cent from $101 to $200; 10.23 per ‘Q
T *?”~t cent from $201 to $300; 10.58 per cent from $301 to $400; and 9.70 per cent ' ‘h
-1‘ 3 Hi from $401 to $500. ;ﬂ
Ex:~mrq; Assessed Valuation and School Taxes Vﬂ
-.9 :“Jf Between 1929 and 1936 the total assessed valuation of property in H
‘ Arkansas drOpped from $625,000,000 to approximately $410,000,000. This drop H
-.;£, in assessed valuation represents an approximate loss of $645,000 in revenue 4
lvi'?1¥£ from the state three mill tax for schools._ 3%
.,. r,“ l
. i I
-- '. it In addition to the reduction in assessments the Federal Government, y
if v-.i through its resettlement and land use divisions, has taken many thousand acres 4
:‘rﬂ of land from the assessment rolls. In some counties there has been a consider~ 1”
able increase in purchase of lands by corporations. Such factors as these ‘
H ,kum“ make of the homestead situation a constantly changing condition. 3
l
‘ The 1936 assessed valuation of urban preperty in the state was
ii For; $163,990,777 with the value of the rural property being $248,987,893. Thus 3
i, ”I..Wi the total assessed value was $412,978,670 *(Table III). Included within the I,
1? $1,000 and $2,500 limits of valuation were homestead valuations of$67ﬁ40,580 .t
, a? and $76,792,675, respectively. These values represented of 16.37 and 18.59 ‘1
;, per cent, respectively, of the total valuation of the State. ‘Translating ‘
9 these ratios into losses, it is seen that an exemption of $1,000 from the
'5 state three mill school tax (or all state property taxes) would result in a
3% potential loss in revenue of 16.37 per cent. Extending the exemption to :1
Ti $3,500 assessed valuation would increase the potential loss in revenue to l
H..-uw.; 18.59 per cent. - ‘
m
The losses on $1,000 exemption would range from 4.69 per cent in f
Crittenden county to 48.25 per cent in Van Buren county. 0n basis of $2,500 3;
n- - A exemption the range of potential loss would extend from 6.12 per cent to a
: .- vugn 48.25 per cent in the same counties. The ratio of exemptable property within 1
L. “‘5 $1,000 limitation to the total assessed value in each county is shown in ’
Figure I. ‘
5 age *This figure is greater than the final total of $410,018,812 announced later U
”guﬁfﬂ,;{ by the Arkansas Corporation Commission because the Commission used the re- ‘
ports of the clerks instead of the assessors.
s 15

 :. W1..- ‘" '1’” ,1. "" ' ' 1 \I“
I '1
_ I If!
- 6 i I
'1 FIGURE I II
1 ' IIII
. - - RATIO OF EXEIv'IPTABLE PROPERTY WITHIN $31,000 LIMITATION T0 ASSESSED [II
. . - VALUATION IN ARKANSAS COUNTIES II
N V «.1 ....——_.mﬂir...c§£1.t. - . . . .. ~-~~--r--.._..._...._- I“ I
. I W._ .. 10 , o 50 40 .__,._§.Q III
' Arkansas ....."""‘_I*_ . I l I I I
1 Ashley .2"ij I I I I I
' ___— I 1 I!
' * 32:23 ‘ , ...._-. _ I '
. ﬁ I 11
- I Boone I———-— __ , I I
I} Bradley "'23 + . 1 III
I Calhoun 1......) I I III
I CEI'I‘Oll “—— I II I
I Chicot I ’ II,
1 . I Clay ——l—. l I I
_ . .y Clark ——g I I 1 I
I Cleburne _—_~-—- I , I I I
I Cleveland 5 I I I I I
Columbia _ a I ’ III
I Conway “ _ . - I § I
.‘1. 515 I Crawford null-n.— _ I I I [I I
. Crittenden 7.221%: I 1 I I III
Cross ::_:‘:,:-' . l I I
I Dallas :::..._.7 “it; I I I II
.I ? Drew _: I I
1 _‘ Desha E. ' I . I I I .
. 1;: Faulkner ‘— _::I.'::J I I "I
3 1 I Franklln a. I I 1
I Fulton —-——l I I I I
I Garland a ’ I I I
I Grant ' I l 1 I
1 i. ‘: Greene -—-J——- - l I I 3 I
4., Hempstead "“3 I I I I
3;: Hot Spring ---—-- - I I I “II
Howard -.- I Q III;
Independence , I I II
Izard III—- I I I
.,: If Jackson I I I I II
Jefferson 1 I I ' III
F, Johnson _.,___ — ._”l ' I I I}:
i Lafayette 4::‘"+‘- .___..z a __ I I ______ I
W.__mm__n1 I
’ T II
i . . I
1 l w
» ’ II
I ~ .51

 2V. . I I II;
' s .1:
3 :1
I 31
FIGURE I - CONTINUED 1
I ‘ ‘ we OF EXEMPTABIE PROPERTY WITHIN $1,000 LIMITATION TO ASSESSED III?
. VALUATION IN ARKANSAS COUNTIES H 3
_________Pe££2n_t.___._______._ [H
I Count 5. e S 0 10 20 30 4O 50 "
’ Lincoln -——.... I II
Little River I . III
Logan —n-—- i III
L°n°ke =75.- ' v
I; Madison _——-——__ ' {1 l
I g— . , ,n,
I Miller -—— | ‘ | iI,
' Mississi 01 == ' ’ j;
p‘ —_ , I
M°nr°e a ' ‘ H
E Montgomery —-—— ' ' I I
I %— . ;
I Newton *‘ﬂ I II :
, ' I 1
1 Ouachita E. . , [
EI Perry _———— , ‘ O ;‘ ‘
{ Poinsett a I, I a I
E POlk -——-— | I
II Pope —_—_ I I I!
Prairie ———-—_—'" ' I
3 Pulaski " l .
: Randolph ~‘_— ‘ t q
it 8001”; m— l i I
? _——_ i - I
I Searcy ————-——-————— 11
I ‘Sebast ian ”a '
!, Sevier W‘— : I II
Sharp I
\ St. Francis — ' [I
E Stone —*—_-— —-l ' I:
u . == . I
Um” =='--- . #3
? Van Buren == ...... r
E Washington an: ' I w
. ==_ I ’ L
Whlte ==—-I I , , II .
I Woodruff I I
Yen '3... z ’ .-
E . ;
i . ~ 4 I‘
g :' 5
i ' " A
‘ i
E z I
M M , M ,, , __ . it"

 ~ 3 :3

; e 3,;

33

FIGURE II 3.33

333

. 33...“ PER CENT OF LOSSES IN ASSESSED VALUATION THAT WOULD RESULT FROM 3 33‘
' "3"" EXEMPTION 0F HOMESTEADS UP TO $1,000 VALUATION. 3 3
_. .. 3;
3 H3
3 Assessed Valuation in Rural School Districts 333
":13 - 7 33
.. .3 ---Per Cent of Loss from 33
.:5-‘: :- .3 / Exemption. 3 3
":;'.-::3 5' 3
.I mind 3 \ 333
:‘33 \. 33‘
\ 33
:'.’ '1, \\ ”J/ 333
3 Assessed Valuation in Urban School Districts 3

I. / 3 31

3 " ’3 ---Per Cent of Loss from 3
3333 ‘ Exemption. :3:
( 3 15.89 133

‘. :7 '3 33
.1" .:,' '3 3 33

. ,‘ﬂjj , 3 *3
.‘i E \ t," ' 33
;~.",.2'.'v3 3‘ I’ 3333
EL 3: I; L'- '-/ 3333
3“" 331'
.J i 33'
Total Assessed Valuation in Arkansas 3
% . ---Per Cent of Loss from 3
~ / Exemption. ,3

. 16.37 33

3 I 3

3 3

3 - ' .... i 1.

3 3

I 3 33

ii _____n____.__,i_. _ W ’53

 .» E H!
' ' = EE
9 3 EE
- E» E
~ E
E According to Table III seven counties (Pulaski, Sebastian, Jefferson, HE
mussissippi, Garland, union and washington) include approximately 34 per ME
cent of the total assessed value of the state. HE
E
In city school districts the potential loss on $1,000 exemptions would ‘ 'E
_ range from 0.61 per cent in the Crossett district to 29.62 per cent in the (E
E Harrison district. These cities would represent the extremes on exemptions E;
, of $2,500 with percentages of 0.61 and 32.68, respectively (Table IV).v The E,
per cent of losses in assessed valuation that would result from exemption EE
' of homesteads up to $1,000 valuation in rural, urban, and all school districts EE
is shown graphically in Figure II. E EE
. E
The two wealthiest school districts, Little Rock and Fort Smith, contain EE
approximately 40 per cent of the total assessed valuation of all city school E,
districts. ‘ {E
E Estimated Loss and Revenues from Homestead Exegption EM
, ' E!
E Obviously the percentage of loss and revenue from the State ad valorem IN
E taxes would be the same as the loss from the three mill state school tax. E“
E In Table V is given the estimated revenue from the state property tax and E
E the estimated loss in revenue on basis of exemptions of both $1,000 and $2,500. EE
E The estimates show that the potential loss in revenue on exemption of home- E
E steeds up to $1,000 valuation would be $588,473,05, while the potential loss H
E on exemptions up to $2,500 valuation would be $668,087.23. The comparatively E
E slight increase on the larger exemption is due to the fact that most of the EE ,
E homesteads fall below the $1,000 valuation mark. It is interesting to note 3E
E that in several counties there is comparatively little or no increase between _EE
E the amounts which would be lost from the $1,000 and $2,500 exemptions. This E5
E is because in these counties there are practically no homesteads valued from Eﬂ
$1,000 to $2,500. E E
E Estimated Loss from Local School Taxes E“
E EE
E The estimated loss from the state ad valorem taxes because of homestead E”
E exemptions represents a constant percentage because these taxes apply to all EE
E property. When consideration is taken of local school taxes there is a HE
E fluctuation due to the difference among the various school districtsvof mills EE
E age rates voted for local school purposes. EH
; It is estimated that the revenue from the local school taxes based on E“
E 1935 assessments would be $6,970,530.13 (Table V11. The loss in revenue that Eb
E would ensue from exemption of homesteads of $1,000 assessed valuation would EE
E be $1,143,658.01, of which $462,343.33 would be in urban school districts. E}
E The potential loss from exemption of homesteads of $2,500 assessed valuation E5
1 would be $1,300,382.20, of which $576,395.74 would be in urban school.di$trﬂﬂmo EE3
3 The percentages of loss from school taxes in all districts of the state would E
E be 16.40 per cent for the exemption of homesteads of $1,000 assessed valuation EE
E and 18.65 per cent for the exemption of homesteads of $2,500 assessed valu- E
E ation. These amounts vary little from the pe