Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-09-22
state Board Of Equalization.

The State Board OF EquanZatloH mas
completed its canvass of county assess
ments and equalized the same, so that in
their estimation the property throughout
California is assessed in about the same
ratio. The county of Sacramento was not
touched, and Assessor Griffitts was conf
plimented by the Board for the efficient
manner in which he had discharged the
duties of the office of County Assessor.
Nine counties were raised as follows
Alameda. I2l per cent, s., 7S1, 794; Kern,
Is per cent, S75S, 223; Lake, 10 per cent,
500, 8S9; Los Angeles, % per cent. st, 4l9, :
729; Napa, 10 per cent, 81, l1o,O02; San
Francisco, 12l per cent, SIG, 69l $50; Santa
Barbara, Is per cent. s., 242,3 81; Santa
Clara, 10 per cent, 50 Al 936; Sonoma, 10
per cent, 81, 397. 40 Total valuation of
property, as returned by County Auditors,
including railroad assessments, S8l0, 307,-
1919. Increase bv State Board of Equaliza-
ton, $f9, POS, 1S5. Total amount taxable
property, 1888, 512, 3S4.
After deducting Y per cent. for probable
delinquents, as the statute requires, there
remains 1856, $40, 895 for actual taxation.
The amount of taxes necessary to be raised,
divided among the funds, is as follows ::
terest and sinking, S269070; total, 81, 49,
07O. The rate of taxation for State pur-
poses for 1855, will be- General fund, 1873 /;
school fund, III; interest and sinking
fund, 3.5; total, 54.4, as against 45.2 for
1884; an increase of 90.
In conversation with q reporter yester
day, Mr. Markley, a member OF the State
Board Of Equalization. said
The additions made to the assessment
rolls of various counties OF the State by
the State Board of Equalization, and the
effect they have, does not seeiL 10 be gen
orally understood. A person living in a
county raised by the State Board tsay 10
per cent? would, without investigation,
think that the result Of the raise was to
add 10 per cent. to the entire amount of
his tax bill. But such is not the case
First take the taxes for county purposes.
The amount of money necessary
to run a county is sum Ger
tain to be ascertained by the Board
OF Supervisors. Say, for instance. they
find it will take 100000; therefore it will
be seen that increase by the State Board
only decreased the county levy to the ex-
tent of the increase, and has little or no
effect on the amount of county tax paid by
the tax payer. Now, assuming that if his
county had not been raised, no other
county would have been, it will be seen
that it does not add 10 per cent to his State
taxes.
The entire assessment-roll of the State
before any increase by the State Board was
$50, 307 1888. Take off Y per cent, as pro-
yided by law, $97, 236, S63, it leaves $7I3.-
070, 3G6, on which TO raise $4.1l907O. the
amount directed by law to be raised by the
State Board for State purposes. Had there
been no raises by the State Board the State
tax levy would have been ST. cents against
344 cents. A piece of land assessed for
81 900 in county raised 10per cent. would
have paid before any raise by the State
Board State tax, s. Il; since raise of 10
per cent, So 9S-Or an increase of p cents. -