upr000132 78

FOUR THE NEVADA TAX REVIEW COMPARATIVE 1945 AND 1946 ASSES! STATE, COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS 1946 Estimated Assessed Tax Valuations Rate Paradise ............ .........P............ —- 798,620 .7256 Consolidated No. I.../............. —— :— 347,722 .1574 Jungo ~ ~ - r—._—......... 413,490 .0815 McDermitt ....=... — ------------------ 450,000 .25 LANDER COUNTY Battle Mountain..... ........ .... .— ..ffl--- 4,425,000 .16 LINCOLN COUNTY Caliente .... ___________ _— ....^= 2,145,000 .441 Carp W*j,. -- -----............921,000 .12 Consolidated .Jffip-. 425,000 1.18 Elgin ... . Lffcjr- Vir^-r^^ ^ jTrfr 521,°0° .18 Panaca ................ ..._____ 371,000 .708 Pioche ... ........... " fy.; ...... 1,745,000 .502 Ursine -.50,000 .25 LYON COUNTY High School No. 1...J H s g t t . 3,445,775 1.43 ' High School No. 2.... ...................... 1,797,346 .39 High School No. 3....................... 1,187,195 .81 High School No. 4___LJBMllBWi 1,622,067 .69 Silver City 173,563 .52 Yerington No. 9*.......... 1,849,999 .25 Yerington No. 9 (bonds)*...---------------- 893,689 .15 Barrett ? -- - 207,000 .25 Meissner ....... .........— ---------- —- 178,899 .24 Canal....... 1 ,622,067 .31 Smith Valley Consolidated 1,044,260 .09 Cemetery No. 1.... ..jifiBljEL--- — ——:...A 3,445,775 .05 Smith Valley Lyon County Fire...:.,..,.....,. 1,187,195 .17 Cemetery No. 1,187,195 .05 MINERAL COUNTY Luning... __.....................................480,879 .06 Hawthorne ___________ 2,264,737 .10 Mina,....................... ' 780,110 .25 Schurz 826,181 .25 Broken Hills -nfrfirn n % rr» jfj.... . 7,505 25 NYE COUNTY Tonopah School......MHE&L....M S » 1,050,006 .50 Tonopah Library • 40,000 . .05 Beatty ... 200,000 .65 Duck Water .. .1__.....___ 35,000 .25 Manhattan " 300,000 .25 Rose 125,000 .25 Round Mountain .... 120,000 .50 Toiyabe 700,000 .625 ? Valuation differs because of enlargement of district after issuance ASSOCIATION CONDUCTS TAX FORUM IN RENO O n M a y 21 the N e v a d a Taxpayers Association held a fo u r-h o u r tax forum , the success o f w hich it is felt w a r­rants its becom ing an annual event. M o re than seventy taxpayers, representing a cross section o f leaders in the public, professional and business life o f the State, attended the forum . M a n y o f these stayed fo r the entire fou r-h ou r session. F ou r subjects w ere chosen fo r discussion, o f which tw o dealt w ith Federal Legislation and tw o w ith problem s on the State level. Each subject w as introduced by a qu ali­fied speaker, w h o outlined the problem in a h alf-h ou r talk. T h e balance o f the h ou r w as devoted to questions and answers and discussion from the floor. "B a la n c in g the Federal B u d get” w as discussed by H e r ­bert J. M ille r, w h o came to the foru m from the Citizens N a tio n a l Committee in W a sh in g to n , D . C. W e l l versed in his subject, M r . M ille r and his organization have been the spearhead in this year’s cam paign to attain the objective o f the title o f his talk. VALUATIONS AND TAX RATES FOR 5 DISTRICT SPECIALS (Continued) 1946 Estimated Assessed Valuations Tax Rate ORMSBY COUNTY Carson District 1 ............................................... ... 2,000,000 .62 PERSHING COUNTY Fountain .......... 250,000 .... 4,301,349 .25 Lake Consolidated ............... .06 STOREY COUNTY Lockwood.......................... 62,317 .23 WASHOE COUNTY Anderson No. 19 ............................................... . ... 1,507,100 .15 Bonham No. 20 ................... 484,150 .25 Browns No. 13..................... 355,835 .10 Consolidated 27 Gerlach High... 605,155 1.02 Copperfield ........................ 142,475 .25 Cox .................-......:......... 95,930 .25 Franktown ......................... 755,960 .08 Galena ............................. 45,845 .25 Home Gardens..................... 58,085 .25 Glendale ................................? R J M R H H R R H 613,345 .17 Huffakers .....................................V .;-..'......... .... 1,901,820 .10 Lakeside ... 329,190. .19 Laughton ......................................................................... 665,805 .25 Lockwood ....................................................................... 257,100 .23 Long Valley ................................................................... 125,000 .25 North Truckee ........................:............................ 525,470 .25 Reno No. 10...................... ........................................... . . . . 35,000,000 .52 Spanish Springs ....................................................... 119,495 .25 Sparks ...................................................................................... . . . . 5,060,000 .75 Verdi ...... 831,490 .25 Vista ....... ........................................... 229,825 .25 Wadsworth ................................................................... 544,200 .45 Washoe _ .A-.............J .l.................................................... 575,925 .19 WHITE PINE COUNTY Cherry Creek ....................................................... 96,873 .25 Consolidated No. 1 ........................................... 143,270 .25 Consolidated No. 2................ 103,206 .25 Consolidated No. 3 (Regan) ... 43,783 .25 Consolidated No. 4 .............. 236,045 .25 East Ely ............ ~~ .......... .... 1,184,696 .50 Ely ......... 1.................................................................. . . . . 2,489,601 .35 Lane City .......................................................................... 211,865 .25 Lund .................................................. .. . ................. 175,921 .25 McGill .................................................................................. . . . . 5,546,739 1 .25 Melvin....................................................-...........:............... 265,281 .25 Preston .............. 1.....................H ..................... R ............ 55,628 .25 White River ..............................1................................ 54,450 .25 Osceola ............................................. 22,476 .25 bonds. F rom the n eigh borin g State o f U ta h D r . M . H . Harris' came to R en o to discuss "F e d e ra l A id to Education.” D r . H arris is the D irector o f the U ta h Taxpayers Association and has m ade detailed studies o f educational costs. T h e resulting discussion o f this subject brou gh t forth a diverg­ence o f view points from some o f those present and a further analysis o f the advantages and disadvantages o f such F ed­eral aid. T h e third subject, and one w hich is absorbing m ore and m ore o f the time o f State and local govern in g bodies, w as that o f assessed valuation o f property. T h is discussion was le d by a student o f the subject and one whose position keeps him in constant touch w ith the many phases o f this problem — R . E. Cahill, C h ief Clerk, N e v a d a State T a x Commission. A n oth er controversial subject w as analyzed by Ernest S. B ro w n , R en o attorney, w h o im partially presented the arguments fo r and against a proposed State sales tax. This analysis included the theoretical argum ents fo r such a tax, a resume o f the effect o f its enactment in other states and whether its adoption by N e v a d a is wise.