Perth Amboy evening news. [volume] (Perth Amboy, N.J.) 1903-1959, 1911-06-20
RUNYOh TAXES
ARE LOWERED
Assessment en- City's Water
Works--Cut S25, 900 by
State Tax Board.
DECISION OF APPEAL
Reduce Amount From $685.
600 to $4,000 on Build
ings--City Atty's. Work.

Attorney c. c. Hommann from the
State Board of Equalization of Taxes
that the assessment by Madison
Township and the Middlesex County
Board of Taxation, of this city's va
ter works property at Runyon, has
been reduced from $4,000 to s13,-
600 on the buildings. The appeal
from an assessment Of S25,525 on
the land at Runyon, levied under
the law, Mr.. Hommann held, is un-
constitutional, has been dismissed.
Raised Plants Amount.
Madison Township levied an as
sessment of $25, ,525 on the-520 acres
of land at Runyon owned by Perth
Amboy, whereon is erected the ex-
tensive water works. ETC., assessed
at $4,000. The Middlesex County
Board looked over the assessments
and promptly raised the figures on
the plant from $4,000 to $4,000.
Late in March the city attorney
appealed to the county board for a
reduction, but the plea was dismiss
ed. On May 23 an appeal was made
to the state board, sitting at the
court house in New Brunswick,
which withheld decision.
At that time Mr.. Hommann based
his appeal on the unconstitutional
ity of Chapter 118, of the laws of
1910, under which the assessment
was made; and also held the assess
ments were not made In accordance
with the statute mentioned. In re-
serving decision the state board
called Mr.. Hommann's atten-
ton to the fact 1t could not de-
eide a question Of law, but would
give his opinion all further at
tention possible.
Writ To Stay Assessments.
Mr.. Hommann said today he WI
probably take out writ of GER
tiorari to stay the assessments up
held by the State Board, on the
grounds the foregoing mentioned law
Is not constitutional. He has not
come to a definite decision in this
matter, as yet, but if the matter is
argued before the supreme court,
and decided in favor of Perth Am
roy, Madison Township will owe this
city a tidy little sum for taxes paid
uuIIuB Inc last IOuI years uAueI
this law.
The Opinion.
The opinion, as handed down by
| the State pes-d, 1e az foAows:
! Chapter 118 of the laws of 1910
which is supplement to the general
tax act of 1908, provides that here
after the lands Of the respective
counties, townships, cities, boroughs,
towns and other municipal and pub
| lie agencies of this state, used for the
purpose and for the protection of
public water supply, shall be subject
to taxation by the respective taxing
districts in which such real estate is
situated, at the true value thereof
without regard to any buildings or
other improvements on such lands In
| the same manner and to the same
| extent as the lands of private per
| sons are subject to taxation not
withstanding any exemption provid-
| ed for IN the act to which this is a
supplement This act applies to
lands of public agencies used for the
purpose of a water supply and for
| the protection thereof OF such lands
as are to be taxed at their true
value without regard to any build
| ings or other improvements on such
lands. Ordinarily there might be
some difficulty in deciding whether
| this language meant that the value
of the lands was to be arrived at
without consideration of the build
ings as a factor, or that the lands
alone were to be taxed and the build
ings and improvements to remain ex-
empt. Precisely the same language
however, has been construed by the
supreme court of this state IN Essex
County Park Commission vs. West
Orange.
That case involved a considera-
ton of the supplemental tax act OF
1905, which sought to subject to tax
alton lands owned by one taxing dis
trict and situated within the limits
of another taxing district without
regard to any buildings or other i'm
provements on such lands The
court held that that act required
that the land be valued separately
from the buildings and other i'm
provements and that the latter be
not assessed the judgment in this
case was subsequently reversed by
/ Tie COuII vi SIIOIS On bAS SIOuHu
that the act was unconstitutional.
There was nothing in this latter de-
cision, however, which disturbed or
questioned the lower courts inter-
probation of the legislative language
| that the lands should be assessed
without regard to the buildings
For this reason We impute the
same meaning to the same language
employed In the act OF 1910. The
result of this view is that so much
of the assessment in question as arc
upon lands used for a water supply.
should stand and that so much of
the assessments as are upon prop
erty other than those lands, should
be cancelled.
Upon the production of proofs as
to the spportionment of the assess
ments or evidence as to the true
value OF the lands, this board will
enter judgments IN accordance with
the views herein expressed"
NOTICE.