Evening star., 1945-04-03
Fairfax County Group
Threatens Court Test
OF School Tax Plan
Legislative Exemption
From Limit Challenged; !;
Formers Rup Increase

N1h oSS VA Vic
Assembly exempting 20 countie
from a 81 limit on tax levies TO,
school purposes may be tested il
the State Supreme Court of Appeal
II the Fairfax County Board of Su
pervisors increases the county schoo
levy by II cents as provided in tn,
proposed budget for next year.
A claim that the act is unconsti.
tutional came at the end of a day
OF testimony at a public bulge
hearing in the Fairfax County
Courthouse yesterday when John S
Barbour, prominent Fairfax attor.
ney, told the board that the State
constitution specifically forbids pass.
age of local or private laws regard.
ing taxation"
Immediately following Mr.. Bar.
bour's statement, Lewis Travis, ar
attorney who lives in Dranesvillt
district and an opponent of the pro-
posed tax increase as unjust to rura
land owners, said that if the levy il
imposed the board may face tax
payers suit"
Fears School Cuts.
While the effects of such a suit
were not discussed at the hearing, i,
was the consensus of attorneys and
county officials that if the act were
declared unconstitutional it might
result in drastic school cuts in q
number of counties. Until the law
could be made constitutional, it was
pointed out, school levies would be
reduced to 81 on each 500 property
valuation.
Several attorneys, however, ex-
pressed the opinion that boards of
supervisors, who are not limited in
the amount of levies laid for gen.
eral governmental expenses, might
get around the problem by increas-
ing these levies and transferring
lump sums to the school systems.
The act referred to by Mr.. Bar
bour, as amended in 1912, sets a
school tax levy limit of 81 per 500
valuation, but excepts by name 20
counties, placing no limit on the
levy that the boards of supervisors
in these counties may levy. The
constitution, it was stated, forbids
the Legislature to make special ex-
emptions for any particular county.
No Personal Interest.
Mr.. Barbour stated that he had
no personal interest in the matter.
but felt it his duty as citizen to
bring the constitutionality of the
act to the boards attention. He
said the difference in the tax that
he would have to pay on his 175-
acre farm If the levy is increased
would only add to the annual loss
on his farm and could be written
off his Federal income tax.
AS the hearing continued hour
after hour, more than % civic and
parent-teacher groups, under the
leadership of Mrs. R. A. Osborn,
County PTA co-ordinator, reiterated
their demands that the board adopt
the S1.744, 1888 proposed budget for
school operating costs and debt and
capital outlay for the next fiscal
year. Their insistence brought from
opponents of the tax increase the
charge that the school groups were
"a cozy little lobby" and that an
agreement had been made between
them and the School Board"
While the hearing brought several
clashes between the two groups, both
found agreement on at least one
point-that some method of equaliz-
ing the tax burden between the rural
landowners and the suburban resi-
dents should be devised.
The school groups held, however
that until some equitable tax equal
ization method could be devised, the
budget should be adopted as it
stands-that the children of the
county should not be made to suf-
fer" Opponents to the increase ar
gued that certain expenditures now
included in the budget could be re-
duced until such time as other
methods of raising revenue could
be devised.
Mr.. Travis, pointing to past in
creases in the school levy, said that
if the educational tax continued to
increase at this rate in the future
it soon would become confiscatory.
He said that rural districts and the
rural landowners now were being
called on to help pay for school i'm
provements that benefit only the
suburban area.
Once Proposed Secession.
Mr.. Travis, who once proposed
that the portion of Fairfax County
north of Difficult Run secede to
Loudoun County, said that the rural
school levy should be more in line
with the levies imposed in Prince
William and other rural counties.
Holding that the farmer would not
be ruined by tax increase, o. E.
Kiessling, Falls Church, cited Bu-
reau of Agricultural Economics fig
ures showing that cash receipts for
farm products throughout the
United States have increased $50
per cent in the last five years, and
that during the same period re-
ceipts for dairy products in Virginia
have doubled.
In the face of this increase in
income, he said, labor cases had
about doubled, feed costs are two
and a half times greater, while in
terest has declined and taxes are
about the same. This proposed
tax increase" he said, would not
be disastrous to the farmer"
Other spokesmen for the proposed
budget pointed out that while Fair
fax is the second richest county in
the State in real estate, it ranks
9th among the counties in edu-
cational efforts; that teacher sal
aries must be adjusted upward in
order to attract qualified instructors
and that adequate equipment and
buildings must be provided to meet
the needs of an ever-growing school
population.
Oppose Construction Now.
Opponents held generally that new
buildings should not be constructed
now at the height of construction
costs and that only absolutely nee
essary expenditures should be made