The diamond drill. (Crystal Falls, Iron County, Mich.) 1887-1996, 1916-11-25
TAX COMMISSION
SETTLES DISPUTE
ADDED S137, 900 TO THIS CITY AND
$4,000 TO IRON RIVER
ASKS FOR REVIEW IN 1917
Changes Since appraisal Was Made
Has Changed Conditions
Very Much

Very Much
The state tax commission, repre-
sented by Commissioners Barns and
Horton, held a hearing in the court
house last Monday and as result
they opened the equalization that had
been made in October by the board OF
supervisors and ordered that the SUI
peryisors make new equalization, an
outline OF which they left with their
order
by the terms OF this new equaliza-
tion, $4,000 were added TO the city
of Crystal Falls and 1857 900 were
added To the township II Iron River.
From each OF the other townships
they deducted small sums so as TO
make the equalization relatively equal
in their judgment
The addition OF the Sl37 900 to Crys-
tai Falls city viii mean about $4,000
more in state, county and county road
taxes than this municipality would
have paid had the equalization as
made by the board OF supervisors
stood
Where II All Started.
The real start of this controversy
goes back three years to the time
when the board OF review Of this city
cut the residence property 20 per cent,
making a total reduction in the as
sessed valuation or this city OF
$4,000
The board OF supervisors equalized
the city upon the valuation as fixed
| by the board OF review and all taxes
were spread upon that valuation. The
west side townships were not suffer
| ing then as was this city because OF
slump in property values and they
passed over the reduction in Crystal
Falls without giving It thought
! Again I'm 1915 the city was equalized
at its reduced value Last spring, the
board OF review in the township of
Iron River felt that that village, too,
was entitled 10 a reduction due 20 the
changed condition OF affairs and a
horizontal reduction was made upon
village property Of % per cent,
amounting in all TO 100000.
! Iron River village property had
been on the roll at very high valua
tions and most persons who knew OF
| the valuation over there felt that the
board was justified I'm making the re
lduction When IL came TO equalizing
| by the board OF supervisots, a kick
was registered and the amount which
had been taken of Iron River was
put back for equalization purposes.
Contention at Meeting.
When the committee on equaliza-
ton. consisting OF Supervisors Will
iams, Jacl<a and Erikson met pro
test was made to IL. Supervisor Wan
3er OF Stambaugh leading In H. Mr.
Wanzer stated that II the $500 600 was
not put back upon Iron River town
hip he would deduct % per cent
! from his entire roll next spring II
this kick" he was backed by several
other supervisors and the committee
reported TO the chairman of tie board
that they were AZ loss to know what
to DO and would like instructions
Accordingly Chairman Richards
called the board TO order and asked
for a vote upon the question in an
Informal way 50 that the committee
might be guided accordingly. Upon
the Grst ballot being taken FIVE mem
bers voted in favor OF putting back
he $500 600 upon Iron River and Eve
embers voted againF H. Another
ballot was taken and six voted in "a
vor OF putting back the reduction and
four voted against H.
The committee then reported an
equalization with the figures virtually
rs they were the previous year. which
meant that for the purpose OF equal
zation Iron River township should be
figured AT 100000 more than the
| f0otiuRs " the assessment rolls
Williams Appealed.
SrperviEor Williams then appealed
% tic state board Of tax commission
err and each supervisor was notified
not 20 spread the state. county and
county road taxes Last week County
Clerk Wall 20, notice from the
commission 10 call the board IN spe.
ciai session on ihe Goth and when the
supervisors appeared last Monday
tcontinucd on PAGE rourl