Evening star., 1931-12-17

ChIueQ Dy Lne MapcS SOILlNllttc'
First, the Mapes Committee follow
OF the District in comparison with ~
per capita assessment method used by
Second, the Mapes Committee did
retical tax liability for the Federal Go
| OF ITS extensive property holdings requi
| the Government which are exempt from
What Is the result?
by It's method Of computation, the
Mapes Committee finds that the pei
| capita TAX revenues in the District
| Wltnout treating any part of the Fed.
eLal contribution as being paid in lieu
! OF TAX, amounts to $55.21. or $306 less
per capita than the average for % other
cities.
Greater Than in Many Cities.
| The Bureau Of Efficiency found that
the per capita tax revenues for the. Dis
| trict IN comparison with IA other citie,
OF comparable size amounted to $T31s
when the Federal holdings required and
used for Government business were in.
GUIDED as taxable, and S57.48 excluding
these holdings. In other words, the
bureau showed that the per capita tas
burden In Washington, including the
Federal holdings, is greater than in lC
OF the IA cities which 1t investigated
and without inclusion OF the Fedora
property exceeded 4 OF the cities.
In It's report, the Mapes Committee
condemned the per capita basis Of as
seSsments, as we'll as the per capita
basis for determining tax burden, de-
caring II Is impossible to arrive at a
true comparison Of relative assessed
valuations and tax levies by any such
method.
The Bureau Of Efficiency, however
believes that the per capita basis of as
seSsmentS is fair and reasonable since
IT Is method of adjusting assessed
values to fair values solely for com
parative purposes. and therefore OBJ
viates TIE use OF varying opinions and
gueSSeS as to the ratio between the
assessed value and market value. In this
the bureau Is supported BY the Mapes
Committee, which on page 7 Of the ON
cial copy Of its report to the House
states:
The realm Of science boasts no SUBJ
! 1ect more eluslve-more controversial
than value Assessment Manual CITY
OF Rochester, N Y, 1890, page ~
There are SO many factors to be con-
sldered in arriving at the valuation of
property such as the use income, loca-
tlon, construction cost, reproduction
cost, depreciation. etc, that no two
ihlhos VIII get to very near approach
to uniformity in determining such VAIN
alton. That is particularly true OF
! those charged with the administration
OF assessments laws"
Ratios Believed Accurate.
Notwithstanding this expressed view
OF the committee. it followed a method
IN reaching its conclusions on the tax
burden for the District and % other
cities that is open to the very criticism
that the committee itself pointei out.
Inc committee, however, made thi.
statement:
Although 1t is dificult to determine
the relation of assessed values to aetna
values. the committee believes that the
| ratloS as they appear in the statistical
tables, attached hereto. are as accurate
as It Is possible TO obtain. These ratios
were obtained from the administrative
omceS OF the municipal governments,
VINO actually make the assessments. and
from such organizations as real estate
boards chambers Of commerce and in
dlVldual citizens familiar with property
values. These administrative offices
organizations and citizens. being IA
miliar with property values in their re
spective communities. are more coupe-
tent to determine the actlal ratio of
! assessed valuations to actual value than
any one else, and, therefore. the infor-
/ nation they furnish the committee Is
the most reliable that could be obtained
for adjusting tax rates"
Such a method Of figuring the ratio
OF assessed value to fair market value
without the use of the per capita as
sessment. the Bureau of Efficiency con-
tends, Is futile. es 1t produces q result
which represents merely the opinion OF
the compiler
Cites Differences Of Opinion.
The Bureau Of Efficiency in its fiscal
relations report cited the wide differ
ences of opinion resulting from the use
OF the ratio Of assessed value to fair
market value. and pointed out that
comparisons of the burden Of real prop
erty taxes in different cities cannot he
made by using the tax rates alone.
Such comparisons are meaningless IS
unless 1t can b, established that the
bases OF assessed valuations are the
same, said the bureaus report. Two
cities may have the same tax rate, but
the actual burden in one may be twice
that in the other because of a higher
basis for assessment.
Conversely, one city may have twice
the tax rate of another, but the actual
burden may be the same because of
lower bases for assessments. Therefore,
attempts to compare Washington's tax
rate OF SIT per thousand on real prop
erty with Baltimore'S tax rate of S24 ia
or Minneapolis tax rate of S73.89 as is
SO frequently done, results in hopeless
confusion. To make such compari-
sons mean something attempts have
frequently bsen made IN taxation
studies to establish comparable adjust
ed tax rates for the various cities. The
usual methcd employed TO adjust such
rates Is to apply the ratio of assessed
valuation to fair or market value to the
actual tax rates; for example in a city
where the actual tax rate is $25 per
thousand and the assessed valuation Of
property is SO per cent Of its fair value
on the average, the adjusted tax rate
would be shown as $3.50 per thousand:
in city where the actual tax rate is
$40 per thousand and the assessed valu-
alton OF property is 80 per cent of its
falr value on the average, the adjusted
tax rate would be shown as SIG per
thousand.
Authorities at Variance.
"As to what this ratio is in the three
cities cited no two authorities agree
Inc Bureau OF the Census in Table %
OF Its report on Financial Statistics of
Cities for 1929 lists the reported bases
OF assessment in practice in terms of
per cent Of estimated true value as fol-
lows:
Washington, 100 per cent; Balh-
more, 80 per cent, and MINNEAPOLIS. 40
per cent. The Detroit Bureau of Mu-
nicipal Research in its 1928 report on
comparative tax rates of 235 cities,
which is published annually and has
at various times been printed in the
House hearing on the District appropri-
alton bill and in the Congressional
Record, gives the following ratios of as
sessment to market values: Washing
ton: 80 per cent; Baltimore, 80 per cent.
and Minneapolis, "a per cent. In
memorandum on the District of Co.
lumbia tax rate preparaa early in 1880
oy the assessor of the District, he offers
still third set of ratios as follows:
washington, go per cent; Baltimore, IS
per cent, and Minneapolis 80 per cent.