The record-union., 1896-09-09
UP SEVENTY MILLIONS.
The State Assessment Roll Raised That
Amount.
The State Board of Equalization In
creases San FranciscO's Assess
ment Twenty Per Cent.

M0AC 4Weuty xcI VoAC'
The State Board Of Equalization met
yesterday and concluded it's labors in
liking the tax rates for the counties OF
San Francisco, Alameda, Sacramento,
San Bernardino, Santa Clara, Monterey
ana San Diego, the assessed valuation
OF the four first named being raised
from per cent. to 20 per cent, the lat
ter figure applying to San Francisco.
The board had so digested matters
that very little time was lost arriving
at conclusions, and when they arose
from their labors the assessed valuation
of property in the State had been raised
S71,026,997
While the increase on assessments on
Alameda Sacramento, San Bernardino
and Santa Clara Counties was but D
per cent. in each case, that of San
Francisco was raised one-fifth, or 20
per cent, and no one need wonder II
the property holders around the Bay
feel sore.
On the other hand, Monterey asked
for q reduction, and after hearing the
evidence in the case the board consid-
cred the request, just one, and per
cent. was accordingly knocked off,
while San Diego County was still more
fortunate in getting a reduction of 10
per cent.
1t should be borne in mind while
studying the following figures that all
solvent credits were deducted from as
seSsed valuations before the several in
creaseS or reductions of the rolls were
made, the board realizing that the
value Of $40 gold piece can neither
increase or decrease in value, and by so
doing any imagined discrepancies in the
percentage as figured may be readily
accounted for:
San Francisco County-Increase, 20
per cent; Auditors return of assessed
valuation, $780,, $50, ,126; increase on as
sessed value, $64 ,4S1 ,446; valuation as
fixed by Board Of Equalization, 1922
067 ,512
Alameda County-Increase, 5 per
cent; Auditors return of assessed val
uation, S92. .379,9 ,917; increase on
assessed value, $4, 566, ,4S5; valuation as
fixed by Board of Equalization, $685.
946,4 ,402
Sacramento County-Increase, 5 per
cent; Auditors return of assessed val
uation. $33, $50, $50; increase on as
sessed value, 81, $50, ,367; valuation fixed
San Bernardino County-Increase, 5
per cent; Auditors return of assessed
valuation, S14 4,415,375: increase on as
sessed value. SIG. .1S9; valuation fixed
by Board Of Equalization SIS, 131 ,564.
Santa Clara County-Increase, per
cent; Auditors return of assessed val
uation, 5.545, ,465; increase on as
sessed value, S2,759. .313; valuation fixed
by Board of Equalization, S5S. .3O4, ,11S.
Monterey County-Reduced, per
cent; Auditors return of assessed val
uation. SIG, 1913 500; reduction allowed
on assessed value, 1894, SOC; valuation
fixed by Board of Equalization, S15,-
95S, 1914.
San Diego County-Reduced 10 per
cent; Auditors return of assessed val
uation, So, ,636, 1872; reduction allowed
on assessed value. 50, ,252215: valua-
ton fixed by Board of Equalization.
$40, 1855. .967
Total amount of increase by Board
of Equalization, S74, ,113.S1S: total
amount Of decrease by Board of Equali-
zation, S30S6,S21; total increase,
S71 ,02699
Footed up returns of all County Aud
itors for assessments other than rail-
roads. 1,149, ,54S346; increase Of as
sessed valuations by Board of EQuali-
zation $71 ,026, 997.
Total assessed value of property
other than railroads, 81, ,220, ,575.343; as
sessed value of railroads, S43, 223, 344;
total assessed value Of property in the
State, 81 .263, ,79S, ,6S7.
HOW IT WAS DONE
When the board took UP the consid-
Grafton of the county assessments
I3eamer moved to take up San Fran
cisco.
Chesebrough said he had made all the
defense of his county In his power and
did not intend to defend 1t further. He
thought the assessment should stand at
the Auditors figures, and moved that
the board accept the returns of the Au-
ditors of all the counties as their proper
assessed valuation.
Colgan seconded the motion, but Ar
mold said there was motion before the
house already-that of Beamer's.
Beamer's motion was then carried,
Colgan and Chesebrough voting no.
Chesebrough then moved to pass San
Francisco. and it was lost by the same
vote.
Then Arnold moved to raise San
Francisco's assessment % per cent, as
Los Angeles had raised her roll 81 per
cent, and San Francisco should do at
least as well, but had only increased
hers > per cent.
Chesebrough said that the increase in
the roll of Los Angeles was in conse-
quence of the promise made last year
by her Assessor, and he did not think
she should set the pace for San Fran
cisco.
Arnold's motion met with no second.
and Beamer moved to increase San
Francisco's roll 20 per cent, and the
motion was carried by the votes of
Beamer, Arnold and Morehouse
Then Beamer moved to raise Alame-
da 10 per cent, but met with no second,
and 1t was raised per cent on motion
OF Arnold, Beamer and Morehouse vot-
ing with him.
Sacramento came next. Beamer NOV
ing to raise the roll 10 per cent.
Morehouse said the county was well
assessed, except the business property
on ] and K streets, and 1t would be