Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000132 78

Image

File
Download upr000132-078.tif (image/tiff; 27.35 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000132-078
    Details

    Rights

    This material is made available to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. It may be protected by copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity rights, or other interests not owned by UNLV. Users are responsible for determining whether permissions are necessary from rights owners for any intended use and for obtaining all required permissions. Acknowledgement of the UNLV University Libraries is requested. For more information, please see the UNLV Special Collections policies on reproduction and use (https://www.library.unlv.edu/speccol/research_and_services/reproductions) or contact us at special.collections@unlv.edu.

    Digital Provenance

    Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room

    Publisher

    University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Libraries

    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.