Imperial Valley press., 1930-04-25
DISTRICT SHOWS
IMPROVEMENT In
TAX COLLECTION
Comparative Figures In
Ten Year Period Given
BY Officials

A comparative statement of as
sessments and uncollected balances
over aperiod of 10 years, compiled
by the office of the treasurer of the
Imperial Irrigation District, with
particular reference to the period
from November l, 1922 when the
district took over the operations of
the several mutuai water compan-
les then active in the valley, to the
present, show the following pertin-
ent facts:
The total assessed valuation for
the years in question was: 1920,
$53, 3,594, ,766; 1923, $43,027,272; 1929,
$49, ,80S, during which time the
rate per 500 valuation has been:
1920, $3.50; 1923, S., and 1899, s5.
On the last Monday in December
of these years, the assessment fig
ures We're: For the first Install
ment-total of the installment, for
1920, $670,137.05; amount uncollect-
ed, $172,576.77; percentage uncol-
lected, 25.75; for 1923: total of the
installment, $1,075, ,705.26; amount
uncollected, $255, ,547.04; percentage
uncollected, 1915; for 1929: total
of the installment, $1,236, ,412.52;
amount uncollected, 1912, ,839.27; per-
centage uneollected, 1921. The in
stallment figures from 1923 on show
almost the same amount each year,
the variance being but slight, while
the percentage uncollected for the
last year, is the lowest reached since
1925, when it stood at 1859, with
2l.06 for 1926; 22.71 for 1927, and
20.0l, for 1928.
Figures for the second install
ment of these assessments for the
same years are as. follows: 1920:
total of the installment, 1869, 724.45
amount uncollected, 1854 ,557.71;
percentage uncollected, 94.74; for
1928: total of the installment,
81 ,O75, ,65S.34; amount uncollected,
$9S5,S70.99; percentage uncollectet,
91.65; for 1929: total of the INSTALL
ment: $1,236,317.SS; amount uncol-
lected, $1,174, ,3030S; percentage un-
collected, 94.98. Again it is to be
noted that the amounts of the as
sessments in these years show but
slight differences while the percent
age uncollected for 1929 is the low
est since 1923, when it was 9l.65.
In 1924 it was 96.07; 900 in 1925;
97.l4 in 1926; 1928 in 1927, and
9709, in 1928.
For both installments the follow
ing are the figures: 1920-total,
1889, ,S61.50; amount uncollected,
1907, ,134.4S; percentage uncollected,
1924; for 1923: total, $2,151, 1868
60; amount uncollected, $1,241 AIS
.03; percentage uncollected, $40;
for 1929: total, $2,472,730.40;
amount uncollected, $1,3s7, 1925;
percentage uncollected, 5000. This
is the lowest for the whole period
comparing with the others as fol
lows: 1920, 1924; 1921, 5000; 1922,
1915; 1923, $40; 1924, 5737; 1925,
$500; 1926, 59.10; 1927, 59.97, and
1928, $3.50.
On the last Monday in June, the
comparative statement goes on to
lCNCdI, tHC ioiioHiHS IIS ultS WHY
recorded as regards the amount un-
collected and the percentage there
of: for 1920-amount uncollcted,
$500, ,S67.42; percentage uncollected,
22.45; 1923-amount uncollected,
$40, 76S.47; percentage uncollected,
22.30; for 192S-amount uncollected
1869, 1854; percentage uncollected,
1881, the lowest figure since 1921
when 1877 was recorded.
AT the date of sale for these same
years the total of sales and percent
age sold were: 1920-total Of sales,
1868, 3,572.09; percentage, 1867; for
1928: total, $244, ,705.SS; percentage,
l1.37; for 1928: total, $366.054.7l;
percentage, 1916. Here we note
that there is gradual increase in the
percentage from 1923, the year after
the District took over the operations
of the water companies until the
present, in this wise: 1924, 1885;
1925, 1897; 1926, l7.17; and 1927,
1874.