Imperial Valley press., 1931-07-15

while the number of deputies has
remained the same, the salary of
each has been slightly increased.
! This increase in salary really means
saving to the district as these
deputies by long service in the Of
! flee are much more valuable and
are capable of accomplishing much
more work than could a cheaper
inexperienced deputy, and faithful
service deserves recognition. In
1923-the year taken as a basis of
omparison-there were 9238 assess
ments on the rolls of the irriga-
ton district. In 1890, there were
1868 assessments, difference of
1880, and the 1881 assessment will
show a much larger increase.
The policy of the district in TAX
ing tax title to delinquent property
has entailed a great deal of detail
on this office that did not exist to
any extent until the past two years.
Up to July, 1929, two years ago, the
district had taken 534 tax deeds.
These deeds are issued from the as
sessor-collector's office. To date,
this office has issued 1927 a total
OF 2093 tax deeds within the past
two years. There are now in the
office, in the process of making.
1000 deeds. Each deed to follow If
through the various steps necessary
TO complete the transaction and
make a complete record takes. by
| actual count, forty-five minutes of
! time. This has all been accom-
pllshed without increasing the Of
flee force.
Last Tuesday at the same meeting
that your board passed the resolu
tlon reducing salaries in this office.
you also passed resolution author
izing this office to issue tax deeds
to the district on all sales for the
year 1926 and all years previous.
Ihe estimated number of deeds to
carry out this policy of the board
is by a conservative estimate, 10000
separate deeds. Then you expect
this is to be done at a reduced SAL
ary and a reduced office force. Is
this fair and equitable?
well as to the deputies inmvofflce.
In making comparisons with the
county-assessor's office, your COM
mlttee did not go far enough. as
the assessor collectors office of the
Imperial Irrigation district covers
about the same scope of work that
is done by the three county offices
Assessor. collector and auditor
but due to the combination of these
offices in the district, it is done at
very much less expense, and with
fewer deputies. One head officer
against three heads in the county
With their respective salaries. also
eliminating the salary of two chief
deputies.
Inc county assessor makes the
assessment and employs one chief
deputy for full time and eight dep
utles part time, one field deputy
full time and ~ field deputies for
period OF three months each.
The county collector collects the
current year taxes and EMPLOYS a
chief deputy full time and u denu-
ties part time.
Inc county auditor devotes about
20 per cent of his time and the
same per cent of his chief deputv's
time, in figuring estimates of de-
llnquent taxes. The collection of
delinquent taxes is made in the
county treasurer'S office, of which
no estimate is herein set forth.
These salaries should have been
used as a basis of comparison:
Payroll of county assessor $40
300; payroll of county collector
S744O; payroll of county auditor ap-
pllcable to taxes, S1040; total s28.-
28O This compared with payroll of
assessor collector for 1880, 500, ,46O.
The difference is 1890.
The salary list charged to the
assessor |collectbrs office in vour
committees report is in error, to the
extent that am charged with four
deputies at $l25 per month. when
the real truth is that only two dep
uties are employed at SIPS on a
yearly basis. Two extra deputies
were put on just before last pay
day for period of six or eight
weeks duration. I have not fig
ured these two deputies in the 1880
payroll. 1t is always necessary to
employ some extra help at this
season of the year.
The reduction of salaries as set
out in the above resolution is very
unfair, as is readily shown by the
following schedule of percentage:
Assessor Collector, $500 to $3.50.
reduction 16 2-3 per cent; chief
deputy. SITS to $3.50, IA 2-7 per
cent; 3 deputies, $3.50 to SIPS. 16 2-3
per cent; l deputy, $l40 to SIPS,
10 7-l0 per cent; l deputy, $l4O to
800, 2S Al per cent; deputies.
SIPS to $100, 20 per cent; / ap-
praiser, $3.50 to 5000, 20 per cent.
Had the board seen fit to make
an investigation of salaries through
out the whole organization, and. if
after a careful check, it had been