Yerington times. [volume] (Yerington, Nev.) 1907-1932, 1919-10-04

80 sss sa8ba aas 8esa ass fuo7f
to- bring sabout,ieq,ialization between
the counties Of Churchill, Lyon and
Douglas. The motion provided that
ten representative ranches asof1 the
county be btaken from the srolla and
that the name of each should be
placed i,r hat! from which Che FIRST
two drawn by disinterestetf party
would be taken by the committee for
inspection, in order to- ayoid singing
out any particular ranch for atten-
ton. This procedure was followed
anb the ranches Of Chase Fulstone
and William DRESSER were. drawn
and inspected by the, COMMITTEES. The
committee reported back after said
Investigation and, by comp Prison of
the assessment valuation Of the lands
in Douglas County with those Of
Lyon and Churchill counties, reached
the conclusion, that. the said countys
average sessment was entirely too
low and that it should, upon the ay-
erage, be increased somewhere be-
tween 80 1-3 and so per cent in order
to produce just and proper eapaliz-
alton as between the aforesaid eoun-
ties. Among other things it was
.eontended that the arabic lands of
Douglas county, assessed at $50 per
acre, were of equal or higher grade
than those in Churchill and Lyon
counties, where the assessment VAIN
alton Of $l2l4 il Churchills and 1f
$l4.7Ospef acr e in i yonscounty Is n6T
carried "
a. From tte, discussion following the
committee report, it was made 10
appear that the arabic lands in Doug
las county had fair average mini-
mum value of perhaps not less than
$1,000 per acre. and that the owners
Of such lands were reluctant to ttirn
them in to the government at such
price for tho purpose of reclaimihg
and putting ssthenfs under Sswater for
settlement purposes. IT was ftiftfier
made to appear from the discussion
that agricultAfal aiurdS atimoaghodt
Douglas County, of (which there ale
1850 acres assessed, would range
in sale value from $500 to $3.50 per
acre, wheseas. the average ,asssssmeht
valuations of same amo,irlts 70 only
$3.50 per acre. II, this Sconhectiall
howeyer.the members of the Board
from Douglas County was able 10
show that Douglas sconnty was net
alone and that the lands in otfitr
counties was Also under aassesset.
This brpadeneh the dicussion ard
there was, therefore, brought into
the issue the question Of land equal
ization from q statewide standpoint
In this behalf the Board, by resc4
lution;y brought in Special ARpai sef
HIS Pohe, who has been Ae1nplcyed
by the Tax Commission during tlIe
past summer forl the purpose of'secufs
ing the sale and mortgage values az
lands and othef properties through
out the various counties within the
state,sin eprder that an actual cont
pafisor may be made with the assesSS
ment valuation for the purpose az
equalization. Upon examination, BY
member ofJ HE Bpafd, 81 Mas Boh&
showed that by comparison, thu
land assessment valuations with the
sales values recorded in varioug
counties were as follows: 81
III In Dolglas Ceantyswhere Is salet
have Been checked, the land assess
ment valuations were shown to b.
SO 90 per- sent of said sale value$9
Compared with which said property
is supposed to be assessed at 90 PEI
gent Of it full cash value.
| In Washoe County, where So sale$
were checked, it was shown that the
ASSIGNMENT salhstiohs s~sss only $3.50
per cent of, said sale value.
III Churchill County, where 81 sales
Ewere checked. it was Ishoyn that the
tassessment valuation amounted to
4g.35 per cent OF said SAFE values.
In Ormsby County were five sales
have been checked, the assessment
|Jalnstion amounted ID 43oz per cent
Eof said sales yafuss ~
T In Storey County, where five sale
values were checked, the assessment
ssaination gwas sifowii 10 sbes s.34 per
cent Of said sale values.
The Board considers this sales
mortgage data which is being ipxesti-
I gated by Appraiser Pohe Of the high
lest value There is aisoi we'll de-