Evening star., 1928-04-06
LITIGATION BLAMED
FOR HIGHER TAX
Suburban Sanitary Commits.
sion Says Recent Suits
Hit Taxpayers.
srecisl n,.rstch 20 tn. star.

ine 10 q statement issued yesterday 0.
that body.
This commission recently certified
to the Prince Georges County commits
SonerS," the statement says. "an'
shortly viii certify to the Montgonier,
County commissioners that q tax rate
on ar aSSeSSshle property In the Sani
farv district Of 10 cents per 500 is nee
esssrv 10 meet the interest and sink
ins fund requirements OF the commits
sicn. An explanation OF the necessity
Cor this tax rate would seem desirable
Under the law the Sanitary Com
mission is required annually 70 deter
mine the total amount OF interest anc
sinking fund requirements Of its out
standing bonds for the succeeding year
10 deduct from this amount the amount
60 be collected by the front foot benefit
charge and 10 certify TO the county
commissioners tax rate which when
tevied and collected will produce an
amount necessary 10 make up the Off
ference between the interest and sink
tnE fund requirements and the amount
TO he received from the front foot
benefit charge. In Justice 10 the county
commissioners OF both counties and in
recognition OF their conmen6shle ef-
fort to hold the county tax rate 10 &
minimum. il ought 10 be stated that
the levy Of the amount which the Sani-
tsry Commission oertifieS to the re-
kOective county commissioners is man
6storv under the law upon the county
commissioners and gives them no dis
cTetion.
S2s5.SSe Annual Interest.
THE commission has outstanding
bonds in the amount OF Ss.oaS. 900 SUBJ
gect to payment by the general tax and
front foot benefit charges. The annual
interest requirement Is $277.4ao and the
ainking fund requirement. S4s.sso IL,
or q total of S323. .2So.ll. which the
commission must collect this year from
the front foot benefit charges and the
general tax. The annual income from
the front foot benefit charges hereto
fore levied. as authorized by the act OF
1927, together with the additional front
foot benefit charges to be levied and
collected as q result OF last years con-
atruction win produce for the ensuing
year total income of S270. 1855. which
would leave only S52a5053 10 be raised
by the general tax. A T-cent tax rate
on the estimated total assessment for
current year will produce the above
mentioned $52.e5o.S3.
A recent decision of the Circuit
Court for Montgomery County declaring
Of these charges has the effect of Strik-
Ing down the increase of the front foot
henefit charges in certain areas and
forbids the collection OF about $4,000
Included in the item OF S270. 1855 as
alsove mentioned. 1t becomes necessary.
therefore To raise for the ensuing year
b. the general tax not S52.950.53. but
about &ST.Q50.53. and the tax rate Is
thereby accordingly increased.
The increase of from cents, which
has prevailed for the past several years,
to IL cents. is therefore largely the re-
suit Of recent litigation, constantly
aimed at the commission. and which
has finally resulted in what the plain
tfffs in the several suits seem 10 desire;
that Is. shifting the burden 20 the gen.
eraI taxes regardless Of how ine0ustable
that might be TO the general taxpayer
Added Amount Necessary.
About three years ago the commits
SION found it necessary TO raise an ao-
ditionai amount TO meet the interest
and sinking fund requirement Of its
bonds. After mature consideration and
keeping in mind the equities of the sit
uafion the commission decided 10 In
crease the front-foot benefit charges in
the areas where the rate was lowest. IN
no case more than 5 cents per front
foot. bringing the total charge IN those
areas for water and sewer lines not
In excess Of 20 cents per front foot.
This method required the vacant lots OF
which there were Thousands. sbutting
upon water mains and sewers TO bear
their just proportion OF the increase
with the improved property. and i'm
posed no greater burden upon property
IN the sanitary district having neither
A
people disagreed with the commission s
conclusions and suits were fled in both
counties TO set aside this increaSe. The
Plaintiffs in all Of the cases contended
that the additional funds necessary
should be raised by an increase in the
tax rate. rather than an increase IN
the front-foOt benefit charge, and this
notwithstanding that In nearly every
ease the actual increase in dollars and
cents 10 the person owning home
would be greater by the tax-rate meth
% than by the benefit charge method.
The Circuit Court found that the com
mission had no authority in the Law
70 make this increase and set aside INC
i1cYease.
The Court Of Appeals afirmed this
NnoInr in April 1927. In the mean
time the commission had submitted
It's problems 70 the Legislature, and
ttae f3 members Of the House and SEN
ate from the two counties. Montgomery
and Prince Georges, agreed that the
small incresSes In the front-foot benef'
charges we're more equitable than an In
crease in the general tax rate. ard
tkereunon pzxs4o an act making the
charges as they stood upon the books
81 the commission on December 81,
1925. the charges which the commits
esrr 9xe authorized 20 collect.
sults AgaIH Filed.
zine same parties who brought the
forn1eY suits again filed their respective
suits in each county attacking this leg
a&lation. seeking 10 strike II down ana
10 force the commission back 70 the
collection ~ the DenefIt charges as
they stood prior 10 July !. 1925, the
date of the increase Tne recent De-
eaklon referred 10 held that the act of
1877 was invalid In this regard and
era joined the collection of any 'front.'
feot benefit charge except as II Sah
originally AeYie6. The CASE has been
taken 70 the Court of Appeals and =
fsnSl decision s hoped for within The
Bex, 90 days
s~Trns net result Of all this litigation
is that the commission finds itself DE-
pfiys1 o. approximately $4,000 In
revenue from the fr0nt-f0oi benefit
charge, wbicn must be made up IN
f1A@f that ths interest may Df PAID
~ tbs bondE an6 the proper sinking
fund maintained The only way IN
which this could ne done is " increase
fke general tax rate. Hence the csTtih
eaton 10 she county commissioners of
ffe i2~csnt EsLe.
The additional increase II Z cents
vas 10 ,ske care 0f the necessary trunk"
lire sever construction which the com
mission several months sgo announced
u wAg undertaking that b. the com
t5aetlon Of the Sligo Valley sever, ron.
ftgaIction u the Wlllett Brook sever IN
the Bethesda area, the extension of tils
az.ek feFeek Valley S@Wpf Some fuffHei