Evening star., 1940-11-17
Montgomery 10 Print
Few Changes in
Assessments
Officials Soy Costs of
Publishing Entire List
Would Be Prohibitive
BY BEN H. PEARSE.

Lie ,OU dulIlOTlZeO Dy Tie
Maryland Legislature last year for
publication Of Montgomery County
assessment lists after the general
reassessment completed last spring
will probably not be spent, survey
Of the situation indicated yesterday.
While no final action has been
taken, President Thomas E. Hamp-
ton. of the Board Of County Com
missioners, explained that the law
provides only for publishing a list
Of properties on which the final
assessment placed by the county
board varies from the valuation set
by the assessors, and does not au-
thorize publishing the entire list
of more than 10000 properties on
the county tax rolls.
Publication of the entire tax list,
with a description of the properties
no longer than the abbreviated form
used in tax sales advertisements,
together with the old and new as
sessments would fill volume about
the size of the Washington city
directory, according to one rough
estimate.
Cost Held Prohibitive.
The cost of printing the entire
list" Mr.. Hampton said, would be
prohibitive and is entirely out of the
question There was no way OF
estimating in advance how much OF
a list would have' to be published
and the $500 figure was put in
the bill to set ceiling.
However, the cost of printing the
list required by the law will be
practically negligible. With the ex-
ception of cases involving clerical
errors, there were few II any
changes made by the board in the
recommendations of the assessors
This includes the assessment OF the
public utility companies, which IN
volved the largest amount, both as
to total valuation and per cent OF
increase over old valuations. ."
Mr.. Hampton pointed out that
Wilton T. Allen, State supervisor OF
assessments for the county, was a
Republican. and Stanislaus M.
Hamilton, head Of the assessment
staff named by the county board,
was Democrat, providing in effect
a bipartisan viewpoint. In some
cases. where the recommendations
of Mr.. Allen and Mr. Hamilton va
ried. the county board took the valu-
alton placed by Mr.. Allen, ana IN
others that of Mr.. Hamilton. AS
long as the board adopted the rec
ommendation of either, or of John
D. Hamilton. Baltimore public
utility appraisal expert retained on
a fat fee to assess public utilities,
no publication is required.
Only Three Appeals Taken.
ANY of the three assessors had
the right of appeal to the State tax
commissioner if they believed the
valuation adopted by the county
board was unfair and represented
anything but a minor difference of
opinion. Only three such appeals
were taken by the assessors from
the county boards final assessments.
All of them we're by Mr.. Allen, but
none of them involved differences
of opinion on valuations.
The three properties were those
of the Women's Clubs in Bethesda
and Chevy Chase and the Boy Scout
Camp near Burnt, Mills. which Mr.
Allen held should be taxed because
they did not come within the def
milton of the State law on charitable
institutions, which are exempt from
taxation. although all three we're
admittedly non profit organizations.
The board voted to exempt them and
was upheld in the cases of the
Bethesda Women's Club and the
Boy Scout Camp, which own and
operate their own properties Mr..
Allen was upheld on the Chevy
Chase Women's Club, which is owned
by corporation and leased to the
club.
80 Owners Appealed.
The property owner also has the
right to appeal to the State tax
commissioner and about 80 appeal Is
were taken from Montgomery Coun-
ty. Mr.. Hampton estimated that
about half were decided in favor of
the board and the others of the
property owners, but said with the
exception of one property none
represented difference in valua-
ton of more than a few hundred
dollars. There was one difference
of $1,000 on a farm which the asses
sors appraised at $4,000. On ap-
peal, the owner won a reduction to
SIS 900, the amount of its recent
sale.
On the question of clerical errors
the board will probably decide to
publish all of them, although no
definite action has been taken yet.
These are not expected to exceed
rs or 100 in number. They are
cases in which a property owner,
for example, has received notice
that his assessment has been set at
$500 and has not objected, but
the amount has been entered on
the tax rolls for SIT 500 and he later
received bill for the latter amount.
Because the erroneous figure has
been finally entered on the rolls,
necessitating action later by the
board for a change, 1T is planned
to publish these changes in order
to comply with the law. The cost
of publishing these clerical error
changes, however, is expected to be
hundreds rather than thousands of
dollars and leave untouched the
major portion of the $500 expendi-
ture authorized.