The San Francisco call., 1896-09-12
The TAX RATE
MAY Be REDUCED
Broderick Says the Raise
Applies to the Entire
City.
M'ENERNEY'S OPINION
The New Tax Law Held to Have
Repealed the ConSolida-
tion Act.
LEVY OF LESS THAN A DOLLAR
No Difference in the Amount to Be
Paid by the Property.Owner.
However.

If Auditor Broderick's calculations are
not amiss the result of the action of the
State Board of Equalization in raising
San Francisco 20 per cent will be that the
rate for municipal purposes will be re-
duced to about 94.5 cents on the $100, pro-
vided, OF course, that the Board of Super
visors does not take it upon itself to
change materially the appropriations as
they have already been decided on.
Mr.. Broderick differs with Colonel Tay-
lor, chairman of the Finance Committee
of the Board of Supervisors, in his ideas
about the raise. The latter believes that
the raise should apply only to that pro-
portion of the total valuation that is neces-
sary 10 furnish the State tax, while the
latter looks upon the raise as applying to
the entire City valuation.
He bases his belief on the following
opinion that was furnished him by Attor-
ney Garret McEnerney, who has gone care
fully into the matter:
The action of the State Board OF Equalization
raising our assessment roll 20 per cent raises
1T for municipal purposes as well as State pur-
poses. In 1886 the Supreme Court decided
| baldwin VS.. Ellis 6S CAL, 495) that the State
Board OF Equalization has power TO increase or
! lower the assessment roll of q county so as 10
| affect taxes for county purposes. The court
| points out in this decision that the rule is of
no practical consequence, for the reason that
| as the assessed value increases, the rate de-
creases.
In September, 1891, the State board increased
| San Francisco 80 per cent. At that time and
under the old law the Supervisors had fixed
| the rate at 103 The consolidation act at that
| time required the act to be fixed in June If
the 80 per cent was to be added for municipal
purposes it would collect from the taxpayers
$900,0O0 more than was needed for municipal
purposes.
Judge McKinstry's opinion was obtained
upon the matter. He advised that San Fran
cisco was governed by the consolidation act
and as it required the local tax to be fixed be-
fore the State board would equalize the roll,
an increase should not be allowed to affect the
roll for local purposes. Otherwise, so per cent
more than was required would be collected
| for municipal purposes. He furthermore
showed that the case of Baldwin against Ellis
was founded upon q section of the Political
| Code which required the counties to fix their
rate after the State board equalized the roll
and consequently the counties could never be
compelled by the action OF the State board TO
collect more than they required, because the
| Supervisors could reduce the tax rate in the
same proportion that the State board increased
the assessment roll Acting upon Judge Nc
Kinstrys advice two valuations were made
| that year-one tor municipal purposes and the
other for State purposes
| EThe new tax law OF 1895 (statutes 1895, D
3OS) has repealed the consolidation act on tax
alton and Eow San Francisco is governed by
the Political Code. Like all the counties OF
the State our rate is now fixed on the third
Monday of September, which is after the State
board eQuRliZes the roll. So that now we know
the amount of the roll as fixed by the State
board before our Supervisors fix the rate for
municipal purposes. We are therefore in the
same position that Los Angeles County was
when the Supreme Court decided that the in
crease by the State board increases the roll for
county purposes. But as above pointed out
the increase does not add anything to the