The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-02-08
City's Request for Information
from County Ignored.
May Result in Suit Against
County Officials.
COUNTY'S SIDE OF 1T.
Claims 1t Has Furnished All In.
formation Necessary.
Trouble Seems to Be Due to
Mutual Misunderstanding.


much money the city of Topeka has
coming to 1t from the accumulated
delinquent taxes of the past three
years, some of the members of the city
council are advocating extreme meas
ures. They would like to see an effort
made to enforce some of the provisions
OF the city charter act, which might re-
suit in subjecting the county treasurer.
county clerk and county commissioners
TO nne, OF even putting them in Jail.
Other members of the council believe
that the best thing the city can do is
to hire an expert accountant to go
over the county treasurer's books and
dig out information which the city
wants. completely ignoring the county
officials.
The county officials claim that they
nave furnished all the information
which the law contemplates, and that
it would take one mans time for six
months to get at the data which the
city wants.
Mutual misunderstanding and dis
trust seems 10 be at the bottom of
this Whole controversy, which had its
origin three years ago when the coun-
ty adopted the 3-year exemption law,
and has been intensified by the passage
of the city charter act by the last leg
iSlature.
| Under the provisions of the city char
ter act, the county officials must make
very elaborate reports to the city, and
the penalty for compliance is fine
of from 800 to 81 900 Imprisonment
not exceeding so to 365 days in the
county Jail.
I'VE don't want to get into JAIL
Isaid Assistant County Treasurer John NJ.
Wright today, but we believe we have
given the city all the information for
which it could reasonably ask. and we
don't expect to put in the time neces-
sary to go through the records for each
taxpayer and find out exactly what
taxes. I don't believe that this infor-
nation would be of any real value to
the city after it gets it,
The provisions of the city charter act
have certainly been ignored in several
particulars. One sentence of section 1876
is as follows:
The county treasurer shall apply all
back taxes collected on the year for
which the same were levied, and the
city treasurer shall give receipts for the
ley OF each and every year sepa-
rately."
The city treasurer has not given such
separate receipts, because the payments
have not been made according to the
law. The penalty If the county treasur-
er fails to make such settlements is set
forth in the law as fine not exceeding
$1,000 or imprisonment in the county jain
not exceeding one year.
The only report which the county
treasurer has made under the city char
ter act is the one which is required at
the time of the annual settlement in
October. On October Is, the county
| treasurer filed such a report as the law
requires. It is doubtful, however,
whether anybody connected with the
city administration understood what the
report meant. Both the city treasurer
| and city clerk have acknowledged that
they We're unable to puzzle it out
/ BOWEN'S REPORT EXPLAINED.
For the benefit OF the city officials,
the following explanation of County
| Treasurer Bowen's report was given to-
| day by Assistant Treasurer John NJ.
Wright who prepared the document:
THE report shows exactly what pro-
portion Of the levy for 1902 was paid in
cash, what proportion was unpaid, and
| what came in from subsequent assess
ments, county redemptions and county
| assignments.
In the report the first division is
| credits. Under this head we show the
| amounts received during the year from
| the accumulated items of county re-
demptiOns, subsequent assessments and
county assignments. All these sums
| were actually paid over to the city in
| cash.
THE next division of the report is
| debts. and here are items for unpaid
personal property tax, double erroneous
assessments and set aside, county en-
| dorsements, and county sales
IF you take the total levy for 1902,
| add to it the credits and subtract the
debts, you will have exactly the
amount paid by the county treasurer to
the city under the 1902 levy. What
| more information than this could the
city need? The debit column shows
the city exactly what part of the 1902
levy was unpaid; the credit column
shows how much has come in during
the year from the accumulated re-
demptions, etc, of previous years"
EFFECT OF 3-YE.AR LAW
In 1901 the county commissioners
adopted the optional provision of the
taxation law, which authorized the
county to buy up all the property Of
fered at delinquent tax sale, and hold
it for three years. Previously the prop
erty had been sold every year for
taxes. and the money Immediately df-
vided I'D. The result was that in 1900
the levy which the city made COM
menced to ''depreciate'' when the taxes
came in There was no income from
delinquent taxes.
The following table shows this fall
ing off, the levy being made in 1899 be-
ing actually collected in 1900 the one
in 1900 being collected in 1901. etc:
Levy, mills for general improve
ment fund, taken as example:
Amound Amount
expected. Year. received.
s51 PIG. a.. 1899 ...... $50, 15S Sc
SO, sol. "a .......... 1900 .. Sc, 297. %
60 81 .......... 1901 ... So, $50 50
From the above it Kill be noted that
in 1899 when the tax sale took place
every year, the amount actually receiv-
ed was more than expected because of
the proceeds from the delinquent tax