Document 1827230

.. A REPORT ON BUDGETS,
WORKLOADS, AND
ASSESSMENT APPEALS
ACTIVITIES IN C·ALIFORNIA
ASSESSORS' OFFICES
1994-95
MAY 1996
CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION fOHANl<LEHS, HAYWARD ·
F!RSTDIS1RICT
DEANF. ANDAL, S'IOCKTON
SECOND DIS1RICT
ERNFSTJ. DRONENBURG,JR., SANDIEGO
1'HIRDDIS1RICT
FoUR1H DIS1RICT
BRAD SHERMAN, Los ANGELES
KA1HLEEN CONNELL, SACRAMENTO
STAT8 CON1ROLLER
E. L SORENSEN, JR., ExEcunVE DIRECIDR
A Report on Budgets, Workloads, and Assessment Appeals Activities in California Assessors' Offices, 1994-95 TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I.
EXPLANATION OF DATA CONTAINED IN EACH TABLE
II.
BUDGET AND PERSONNEL STATISTICS
Table A
TableB
TableC
m.
Table I
TableJ
TableK
TableL
5
6-8 9-11 12-13 Distribution ofAssessment Appeals by Property Types (1994-95 Fiscal Year)
Distribution ofAssessment Appeals by Property Types (Previous Fiscal Years)
Assessment Appeals Activity for the 1994-95 Fiscal Year
Assessment Appeals Activity - Outstanding Appeals
Number ofAppeals Boards and Hearing Officers
14 15 16 17 18 DATA ANALYSES
TableM
TableN
Table 0
TableP
Table Q
TableR
Table S
Table T
VI.
Local Roll Value and Statistics
Distribution ofLocal Roll by Property Types
Real Property Workload Data
Business Property Workload Data
ASSESSMENT APPEALS STATISTICS
TableH
v.
1-2 3
4
LOCAL ROLL AND WORKLOAD STATISTICS
TableD
TableE
TableF
Table G
IV.
Budget Data & Costs of Selected Programs
Budgeted Permanent Positions
Budgeted Temporary Positions
HOV
Demographic Comparison
Workload Indicators
Distribution ofWorkload Indicators
Total Budget, Roll Units and Roll Value Comparison
Comparison ofAdministrative Positions
Real Property Workload Comparison
Business Property Workload Comparison
Clerical Workload Comparison
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 APPENDICES
1
2
Itemization of Other Income (Table A, Column 10)
Budget, Staff, Roll, and Assessment Appeal Data Request
27-29 30-37 SECTION I. EXPLANATION OF DATA CONTAINED IN EACH.TABLE EXPLANATION OF DATA CONTAINED IN EACH TABLE
The purpose ofthis report is to supply data that is useful for comparing the operations of an assessor's
office with those of other county assessors 1. Two possible uses for the data contained in this report are
for management/staff planning and budget-development procedures.
This data was compiled by the Board's Assessment Standards Division from a questionnaire sent to all
assessors. A copy of the questionnaire that was mailed to assessors requesting data for the 1994-95
fiscal year is contained in Appendix 2. Please note that the figures and totals in this report may be
incomplete in that they represent a comparison of furnished data only. Fifty-five of the 5 8 counties
reported data; Glenn, Lake, and Trinity Counties did not provide any data for 1994-95.
Any questions you have concerning this report should be directed to the Real Property Technical
Services Section at (916) 445-4982. Any questions you have concerning the data submitted by a
particular county should be directed to that county.
Following are discussions of data contained in this report and comparison with previous years'
2
reports. Please note that neither this year's report nor any of the previous reports include
current information from all 58 counties. Accordingly, none of the statewide data or trends are
entirely accurate. However, we have attempted to account for omissions or obvious errors, so we
believe the statewide data and trends over the years are reasonably accurate unless otherwise noted.
TABLE A:
BUDGET DATA & COSTS OF SELECTED PROGRAMS
This table provides the costs for the major components of the county assessors' budgets. The major
components included are the salaries and wages, cost of services from other departments (e.g.,
janitorial, data processing), other costs, services to other departments, map sales, sales of data, fees for
appraisal copies, fees for on-line access to assessor's information, and other income (see Appendix I
for itemization of other income). Other selected programs for which we collect data are costs for the
exemption program and data processing. These data may be used to compare the budgets of counties
that are similar in size and demographics (see Table P, Total Budget, Roll Units and Roll Value
Comparison).
As illustrated below, over the past ten years the statewide totals indicate that gross budgets have been
gradually increasing each year until last year. While the 1993-94 statewide gross budget was 6 percent
1
Several counties have combined the assessor's office with other county offices such as the recorder and the clerk. For those offices with combined functions, the data requested and used represent only those related to the function of the assessor as furnished by them.
·
2
All data referenced and contained in the charts were collected from previous issues of A Report on Budgets, Workloads, andAssessmentsAppea/sActivities in California Assessors' Offices, unless otherwise noted less than the 1992-93 figure, the 1994-95 statewide gross budget is slightly higher than the 1993-94
statewide gross budget (less than 1 percent difference).
Gross Budget
$300,000,000
$275,000,000
$250,000,000
$225,000,000
$200,000,000
$175,000,000
$150,000,000
$125,000,000
$100,000,000
ID
.....
.
..p:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:..:.:.:.:.:.:..:.:.~=~~.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.i.:.:.:.:=.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.~:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.=~:.:.:o.:.:.:.;:.:.:.:.:.:.:,;=.p:o:.:.:.:.:.:.:~-=-i==.:.:.:..:.:.:.:.:.:.:~.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
«>
m
CXl
s3
tO
O> tO
<»o
m
.....
~ .....
O> O')
O')
m
.....
,.­ N
O')
Year
These data may be calculated with other data in this report to indicate the cost per staff or cost per roll
unit, for example, of an assessor's office.
Notes: Column 4, Gross Budget, is the sum of Columns 1 through 3. Many assessors' offices have
other sources of income. These sources have been divided into several categories: services to other
county departments (column 5), map sales (column 6), fees for property details (column 7), fees for
copies and information (column 8), fees for on-line access (column 9) and other income (column 10).
Other income is itemized in Appendix 1. Deducting the amounts entered in columns 5 through 10
from the gross budget (column 4) yields the net budget (column 11). If the assessor's office does not
have other sources of income, then the gross budget (column 4) will equal the net budget (column 11).
Columns 12 through 16 compare the 1994-95 net budget to the net budgets from 1992-93 and 1993­
94 fiscal years and indicate the annual percentage change. Columns 17 through 19 separately identify
special interest items. Column 17 is the amount of the net budget attributable to the exemption
program. Column 18 is the data processing costs provided by county departments other than the
assessor's office. Column 19 is the data processing costs of services implemented internally by the
assessor's office.
TABLE B:
BUDGETED PERMANENT POSIDONS
This table provides data on the staffing levels of the county assessors' offices. This table divides
budgeted and funded permanent positions into six categories: assessor and managers, real property
appraisers, business property appraisers, cadastral draftspersons, other technical/professional (e.g.,
computer specialists), and clerical.
11
Statewide, the assessors' staffing levels peaked in 1991-92, declined in 1992-93, and continued to
decline slightly in 1994-95. It appears, however, that the decline in staffing may be leveling out. Please
note the figures in this report do not reflect any changes that may have occurred because of Chapter
914 (AB 818, Vasconcellos). In 1995, Chapter 914 was signed into law and took effect on October
16, 1995, for the 1995-96 fiscal year. This bill provides financing for assessors' offices to specifically
enhance the assessment function. The following chart indicates the trend in staffing levels over the
past 10 years.
Staffing Levels
6,000
:t:
cu
Ui
0
0
z
5,500
5,000
4,500
4,000
..n
<D
m<O
...­
r.b ......
m
co
mo
m
...­
~
.....
0) 0)
0)
...­
I
m
.....
...­ N
0)
NM
m
.....
0)
Year
These data may be used in conjunction with the data in the other tables to the measure efliCiency and
productivity of an assessor's office. In Tables 0 through T we analyzed the workload with data in this
table to develop workload indicators.
Notes: Positions are given in terms ofperson years. Columns 8 through 11 compare this report's total
staff to the total staff of the two previous reports and ·indicate the annual percentage change.
Temporruy positions are not accounted for in this section; they are included in Table C.
TABLE C:
BUDGETED TEMPORARY POSffiONS
This table provides data on the budgeted temporary positions by staffing level. This table divides the
data into five categories (real property appraisers, business property auditor-appraisers,
drafting/mapping, other technical professional,' clerical). Positions are given in terms of person years.
The number oftemporary positions decreased in 1993-94 by more than 50 percent from 1992-93. The
number of temporary positions continued to decline in 1994-95, although very slightly. To compare
the 1993-94 and 1994-95 data with those provided in previous years, we needed to convert the
previous years' data from person-hours to person years. The following chart shows the trend for the
last ten years.
111
Budgeted Temporary Positions
200
180
160
(II
c 140
.2
:; 120
0
a. 100
..... 80
0
60
0
z
40
20
0
IO
CD
....,..I
U)
co
.;,
I'ClO
CD
CD
r.b
a>
......
......
......
O')
O')
O')
co
ClO
r..!.
a>
tD
CD
......
......
O')
O')
CD
O')
0
.....
N
O')
0
.....
O')
......
......
o;>
CX)
O')
......
o;>
O')
O')
o;>
O')
Year
These data and the data in Table B make up the total staffing level of an assessor's office. The total
staffing level is used in conjunction with the data in the other tables to measure efficiency and
productivity of an assessor's office. In Tables 0 through T we analyzed the workload with data in this
table to compare workload indicators.
TABLED:
LOCAL ROLL VALUE AND STATISTICS
This table provides the total value ofthe secured, unsecured, and supplemental rolls. The values ofthe
secured and unsecured rolls used in this report were first published in Table 10 of the Board of
Equalization's Annual Report 1993-94. This is a change from previous reports which relied solely on
data supplied by county assessors. Table D also lists the total number ofunits (assessments that result
in a single tax bill) on the secured, the unsecured, and the supplemental rolls.
The statewide total roll value, as published in previous issues of the Board's Annual Report, increased
steadily until 1992-93 as illustrated below. The 1993-94 and 1994-95 indicated total roll values still
increased but appear to have leveled out slightly.
lV
Local Roll Value
~
g
$1,750,000,000 ttt&:tt~~
$1,500,000,000
~ $1,250,000,000
~
~
$1,000,000,000
$750,000,000
$500,000,000
mo
m
mco
.;,
(.0
.....
.....
(j)
~ .....
(j) (j)
.....
..J.
m
.....
I.()
(j)
Year
This table provides data for workload analyses. For example, one analysis would be to look at the total
roll units per clerk since the clerks are responsible for updating and maintaining the roll. See Tables P
and T for workload analyses using the local roll value.
TABLE E:
DISTRIBUTION OF LOCAL ROLL BY PROPERTY TYPES
This table provides data on the distribution of the secured and unsecured rolls by property types. The
following pie chart graphically displays the distribution of the local roll (secured and unsecured). The
secured roll is separated into five categories: residential, commercial, industrial, rural, and
miscellaneous. These categories are further subdivided. The unsecured roll is divided into eight
categories: aircraft, boats, personalty and :fixtures, unsecured possessory interests, manufactured
homes, leasehold improvements, escapes from prior years' rolls, and other unsecured assessments.
v
Distribution of Local Roll
1%
13%
COi Secured Residential
3%
Ill Secured Rural
4%
D Secured Commercial
3%
51 Secured Miscellaneous
76%
•Secured Industrial
nm Unsecured
These data may be used in analyzing the workload of an assessor's office and comparing it to like
counties. The data also may be used to show the work distribution (e.g., ratio of residential to
commercial units, ratio of secured units to business property assessments).
Notes: Column 30, Grand Total Local Roll is the sum of Column 20 (Total Secured Roll) and Column
29 (Total Unsecured Roll).
TABLE F:
REAL PROPERTY WORKLOAD DATA
For purposes of this report, we divided the workload of an assessor's office. by real property and
business property. Table F provides data on the real property workload. The business property
workload is contained in Table G. Another workload item that affects both real and business property
is assessment appeals, and that information is contained in Tables Hand I. The data contained in this
table and the relevant appeals data in Tables H and I comprise the real property workload of an
assessor's office. In Tables 0 through S we analyzed the real property and the business property
workload by the staffing levels indicated in Tables B and C.
Included in the real property workload are transfers, new construction, taxpayer relief programs
(misfortune/calamity; eminent domain; Propositions 60, 90, 110), miscellaneous items (appealed
properties, property splits, new subdivis~on lots, and roll corrections), and Proposition 8 reductions
(properties where the current market value has fallen below the factored base,. year value). Please note
that these data do not represent the entire real property workload of an assessor's office. In addition,
some data that we requested were not available in certain counties. The categories that are new for the
1994-95 report are Units Affected by Misfortune/Calamity, Eminent Domain, and Claims Filed for
Propositions 60, 90, 110.
V1
Last year we estimated that the total number of transfers and new construction statewide increased by
2%, as opposed to the indicated 4% decrease (the 1993-94 totals did not include data from San
Bernardino County). Statewide, the total number of transfers (Column 2) and number of new
assessments from new construction (Columns 5 and 6) indicates an increase from 1993-94. This
followed a sharp 25% decrease for 1992-93 in the 'total number of transfers and number of new
assessments from new construction. The chart below illustrates the trend in transfers and new
construction in the last ten years. These figures provide one indicator that California's real estate
activity may have started to recover in 1994-95. However, California's real estate values have not yet
begun to rebound. Statistics show that the number of properties that have a Proposition 8 assessment
increased in 1994-95. In addition during the 1994-95 fiscal year, California experienced four
Governor-declared disasters, two of which affected all 58 counties. Thus, assessors' offices
experienced both increases in workload from transfers and new construction as well as increases in
workload from Proposition 8 and disaster relief for the 1994-95 fiscal year.
Total Number of Transfers and New Construction
lf)
Q'.)
...too
m
.....
lO
l'­
Q'.)
Q'.)
Q'.)
I(.)
Q'.)
r.b
Q'.)
r-!.
Q'.)
Ujl
m
O'l
m
m
00
Q'.)
m
.....
0
.....
c»
0
m
CX)
CX)
O'l
.....
a,
m
m
.....
N
a,
m
m
.....
M
m
N
m
m
.....
v
m
cJ>
m
m
.....
lf)
m
~
m
m
.....
Year
Notes: Column 8 lists the number of units that have been affected by a misfortune or calamity and
have had their taxable values reduced under Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 170 ·or 51 (c) or have
requested a transfer of base year value under Sections 69 or 69.3. Column 9 lists the number of units
that have been affected by eminent domain proceedings (property taken by a governmental entity).
Column 10 lists the number of claims filed requesting transfer of base year values under Section 69. 5.
Columns 11 through 19 list the number of units which have had their values reduced to the current
market value.
TABLE G:
BUSINESS PROPERTY WORKLOAD DATA
This table provides data used to determine the business property workload of an assessor's office.
Items affecting the business property workload include boats, aircraft, direct billing assessments,
property statement assessments, field appraisals, racehorse returns, and mandatory audits.
vu
In 1993-94 we adjusted for San Bernardino County and estimated a growth of 1.7%. However, the
statewide total number of business property assessments (column 7) in 1994-95 decreased from 1993­
94. These figures also indicate that California's economy continued to be sluggish during the 1994-95
fiscal year. The chart below illustrates the decline in the number of business property assessments since
1987-88.
Trend in Business Assessments Cll
en en
ccu -c
-
g:
£C
0•
CP
E
Cll
=
en
en
~ c(
1
1,750,000
1,700,000
.aoo.ooo
1,650,000
1,600,000
1,550,000
1,500,000
1 5
1,400,000
,4 0,000
1,350,000
jllllmllRRllllllBllllBlllll
lllllillllllllllll
Year
Another workload item, appeals of business property assessments, is contained in Column 5 of Tables I
and J. The data contained in this table and the relevant appeals data in Tables J and K comprise the
business property workload of an assessor's office. In Tables 0 and P we analyzed the business
property workload by the auditor staffing levels contained in Table B.
Notes: Column 1 includes only boats that are assessed; boats that are exempt due to low value are
excluded. Column 2 omits exempt historical aircraft. Certificated aircraft (Column 3) is defined in
Revenue and Taxation Code Section 1150 as commercial freight or passenger aircraft. In Column 5, a
field appraisal is defined as an appraisal that was done at the place of business and was not assessed by
either a property statement or direct billing. Column 9 is the sum of Columns 1 through 8. Vessel
PropertY Statements (Column IO) are mailed out on boats that are valued over $30,000. Column 12
lists the number of mandatory audits due in 1994-95 (audits in the last year of the mandatory audit
period). Column 15 is the sum of Columns 12, 13, and 14. Column 18 provides the number of
mandatory audits completed or waived during the 1994-95 fiscal year (sum of Columns 16 and 17).
Column 19 is the number of audits being carried over to the next fiscal year (the difference between
Column 15 and Column 18).
TABLES H & I:
DISTRIBUTION OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS BY PROPERTY TYPE
These tables indicate the number of appeals filed among various property types. The total number of
appeals filed is sorted by residential, commercial, industrial, rural, business property, and other appeals
filed. Please note that the number of appeals filed may not be the same as the number of parcels that
V111
have been appealed. Some counties allow one appeal to be filed on several parcels if they are
considered an appraisal unit. While the distribution among property types is new for this year, the total
appeals filed can be compared to previous years.
As depicted by the chart below, the total number of appeals filed stayed relatively the same between
1987-88 and 1990-91, with a slight increase in 1990-91. In 1991-92 and 1992-93 the total number of
appeals filed increased noticeably. However, in 1993-94 the total number of appeals filed increased
dramatically by 51 percent over 1992-93. The number of appeals filed continued to increase in 1994­
95 with a 17 .2 percent increase.
Total Number of Appeals Filed
250,000 200,000 "O
.!!
u::...
150,000
Cl)
.a
E 100,000
::I
z
50,000
0
t()
co
~
co
m
..-
([)
~
t()
co
m
..-
.....
co
w
co
m
..-
m
...:..
co
m
..-
m
co
ch
co
m
..-
0
m
ch
co
m
..Year
..-
~
m
m
,....
N
q>
(;)
m
..-
The data contained in Tables B, G, H, I, and J were analyzed in Tables 0 and P to provide workload
indicators ofthe assessors' workloads.
In comparing the number of appeals filed for each property type with the distribution of the secured
and unsecured rolls, we noted that commercial properties had the most appeals filed. One appeal was
filed for every ten units of commercial property. Industrial and rural properties were tied for the
second most appealed category (one appeal filed for every 16 units of property). Residential properties
were fourth with one appealed filed for every 78 units of residential property. Business property was
last with one appeal filed for every 290 business property assessments.
Notes: Table H indicates the number of appeals filed for the 1994-95 fiscal year (filing period July 2 to
September 15, 1994). Table I indicates the number of appeals outstanding as of July 1, 1994--appeals
that were filed for previous fiscal years but had not yet been heard.
1X
TABLES J & K: ASSESSMENT APPEAL ACTIVITY These tables provide data on what action was taken on assessment appeals during the 1994-95 fiscal
year. Table J indicates the assessment appeal activity that occurred during the 1994-95 fiscal year on
appeals that were filed for the 1994-95 fiscal year. Table K indicates the assessment appeal activity
that occurred during the 1994-95 fiscal year on the appeals that were filed for previous fiscal years and
carried over to 1994-95. The number of appeals resolved is separated into seven categories: appeals
withdrawn; no show (taxpayers not showing up for hearings); invalid appeals; stipulations; and appeals
heard where the assessments were reduced, sustained, or increased. Any appeals filed but not resolved
are carried over to the next fiscal year.
The purpose of this table 'is to indicate the appeals workload not only during the 1994-95 fiscal year,
but also the workload that is carried over to the next fiscal year. In 1993-94 only 46 percent of the
appeals filed in 1993-94 were resolved the same year. However, in 1994-95, 56 percent of the appeals
filed this year were resolved the same year.
Notes: Total number of appeals filed (Column 1) is taken from data in Column 7 of Tables I and J.
Column 9 is the sum of Columns 2 through 8. Column 10 is Column 9 subtracted from Column 1.
TABLE L:
NUMBER OF APPEALS BOARDS AND HEARING OFFICERS
This table provides data on the number of boards or hearing officers for each county which hear
property tax appeals. To handle the increase in property tax appeals for 1994-95, changes occurred in
the Counties of Alameda and Orange. Alameda County increased the number of assessment appeals
boards from 1 to 2. Orange County added a third assessment appeals board. ..
Notes: Column 1 indicates ·if the county board of supervisors sits as the county board of equalization;
column 2 lists the number ofassessment appeals boards; and column 3 lists the number hearing officers
appointed by, and separate from, the assessment appeals board.
TABLE M:
DEMOGRAPIDCS
This table compares counties by size. We chose three different definitions of size: population, gross
budget, and total roll units. The population figures were supplied by the Demographic Research Unit
of the California Department ofFinance and are estimated as of January 1, 1995. The purpose of this
table is to give an overall view ofwhich counties are comparable.
TABLE N:
WORKLOAD INDICATORS
This table provides some workload indicators of an assessor's office. The workload data from Tables
F, G, and H, when used in conjunction with the data on staffing levels in Table B, provide various
x
indicators ofthe efficiency of the assessor's office. We did make staffing adjustments for several ofthe
smaller counties. For example, several counties reported no business property auditors on their staffs.
However, their business property assessments and mandatory audits are being completed. To these
counties, we allocated a half or full position. In addition, the position of assessor is a working position
in some smaller counties (i.e., the assessor also completes some of the real property or business
property assessments). However, these are not taken into consideration in the staffing for this table.
Please note that the data we requested in our questionnaire may not represent the entire workload of an
assessor's office. In addition, some data that we did request were not available in certain counties.
Thus, the figures and totals are incomplete in that they represent a comparison of furnished data only.
We caution the reader to note that the data used in this table may not accurately represent the actual
workload of a real property appraiser or business property appraiser. For example, reductions in
assessed values due to decreasing real estate values (Proposition 8 assessments) may be done en mass
with a computer. On the other hand, each disaster reassessment requires individual attention and
probably a field inspection.
Notes: Column 1, number of real property units worked, is the sum of the total transfers (Table F,
column 3), new assessments resulting from permits (Table F, column 6), construction discovered
without permits (Table F, column 7), units affected by misfortune or calamity (Table F, column 8),
properties affected by eminent domain (Table F, column 9), the number of claims filed for Propositions
60, 90, 110 (Table F, column 10),), property splits (Table F, column 12), new subdivision lots (Table
F, column 13), roll corrections (Table F, column 114), assessment appeals (Table F, column 11--Table
I, column 7 minus column 5 was used if data was not provided for Table F), and Proposition 8 (Table
F, column 17). Column 2, the number of appraisers, is the sum of real property appraisers from
Budgeted Permanent Positions (Table B, Column 2) and Budgeted Temporary Positions (Table C,
Column 1). The number of units worked (column 1) divided by number of appraisers (column 2)
equals the number ofunits worked per appraiser (column 3).
Column 4, the number ofunsecured units worked is the sum of the total business property assessments
(Table G, column 7), the mandatory audits complete (Table G, column 16), and the number of business
property appeals filed (Tables I and J, column 5). Column 5, the number of appraisers, is the sum of
auditor-appraisers from Budgeted Permanent Positions (Table B, Column 3) and Budgeted Temporary
Positions (Table C, Column 2). Column 6, the number of unsecured units worked per auditor­
appraiser, is column 4 divided by column 5, the number of auditor- appraisers.
Column 7 is the number of property splits (Table F, column 12) divided by the number of drafting
personnel (Table B, column 4). Column 8 is the number of new subdivision lots (Table F, column 13)
divided by the number of drafting personnel (Table B, column 4).
X1
TABLE 0:
DISTRIBUTION OF WORKLOAD INDICATORS
In this table, the workload indicators provided by Table 0 are sorted in descending order by the
number of units worked. Please note that the data we requested in our questionnaire does not
represent the entire workload of an assessor's office.
The statewide average number of units worked per appraiser is 2,338.25. Nine counties out of 58 are
above the statewide average. Please note that the top four counties (Orange, San Bernardino, San
Diego, and Riverside Counties) all had large numbers of Proposition 8 assessments (reductions in
assessed values due to decreasing real estate values). Since these types of assessments may be done en
mass by computer, the figures for these four counties may be skewed. The statewide average number
of unsecured units worked per auditor-appraiser is 2, 773.39. Thirty-two counties are above the
unsecured statewide average. However, please note that some data that we did request were not
available in certain counties. Thus, the :figures and totals are incomplete in that they represent a
comparison offurnished data only.
Notes: Please see the Table 0 Notes above for a description ofunit worked.
TABLES P-T: These next five tables compare the workload, staffing, and budgeting figures to
counties of similar size. We determined "similar size" based primarily on the number oftotal roll units.
We realize this is not strictly the only size comparison to make. However, this appeared to be the· best
overall method without separately analyzing the geography of each county.
We inserted blank spaces between groupings to distinguish counties of "similar size." We did make
one adjustment to these groupings. We moved Santa Cruz and Marin Counties to the category above
our dividing line. We felt that the total roll units alone was not good indicator of their workload
because of the partial urban geography of these two counties and their proximity to urban areas. In
addition, we placed Los Angeles County in a category of its own. Because of its size, we chose not to
compare Los Angeles County to any ofthe other 57 counties in California.
a
Again, we caution the reader to note that not all counties submitted the data requested. Thus, the
figures and totals are incomplete in that they represent a comparison offurnished data only.
TABLE P:
TOTAL BUDGET, ROLL UNITS AND ROLL VALUE COMPARISON
The first area of comparison that we made was the total budget, roll units, and roll value to staff
members. This was done to establish a broad overview.
Notes: The total staff figures in column 1 are a compilation of Tables Band C (budgeted permanent
and budgeted temporary positions). The gross budget, total roll units, and total roll value figures crune
from Tables A and D. Column 3, Budget per Staff Member is column 2 (Gross Budget) divided by
X11
column 1 (Total Staff). Column 5, Roll Units per Staff, is column 4 (Total Roll Units) divided by
column 1. Column 7, Roll Value per Staff, is column 6 (Total Roll Value) divided by column I.
TABLE Q:
COMPARISON OF ADMINISTRATIVE POSillONS
To determine the level ofadministrative staffing necessary to manage an assessor's office, we compiled
the data presented· in Table Q. We caution the reader to take into consideration that the staffing
classification used in this report was reported by the counties. Counties do not all count staffing the
same way.
Notes: Column 3, Staff per Administrative Position, is column 2 (Other Stafl) divided by column I
(Assessor and Other Managers). Column 5, Roll Units per Administrative Position, is column 4 (Total
Roll Units, divided by column I.
TABLER:
REAL PROPERTY WORKLOAD COMPARISON
This table compares those elements relevant to the real property appraisal staff Other items are also
worked by the real property appraisal staff (such as assessment reviews for Proposition 8 declines in
value, appeals, etc.). These items were not included due to annual fluctuations. In additic~n, we did
not make comparisons of appraiser experience, education and training, or ability. These are all items
that could affect the productivity ofthe appraisal staff.
Notes: Column 2, Real Property Appraisers, is a compilation of Table B, column 2, and Table C,
column 1. Column 4, Appraisers per Secured Roll Units, is column 3 (Secured Roll Units) divided by
column 2 (Real Property Appraisers). Column 6, Transfers per Appraiser, is column 5 (Total Transfers
divided by column 2. Column 8, New Construction per Appraiser, is column 7 (New Construction
Units Appraised) divided by column 1.
TABLES:
BUSINESS PROPERTY WORKLOAD COMPARISON
This table compares three major functions ofa.business property valuation unit: performing mandatory
audits, processing business property statements, and valuing all business property accounts.
Notes: Column 2, Business Property Appraisers, is a compilation of Tables B and C, Budgeted
Permanent and Temporary Positions. Column 4, Assessments per Auditor, is column 3 (Business
Property Assessments) divided by column 2. Column 6, Mandatory Audits per Auditor, is column 5
(Mandatory Audits due) divided by column 2. Column 8, Property Statements per Auditor, is column
7 (Property Statements) divided by column 2.
Xlll
TABLET:
CLERICAL WORKLOAD COMPARISON
This table compares three categories ofthe assessors' clerical staffing in comparable counties.
Notes: Columns 1 and 2 are a combination of the applicable columns from Tables B and C, Budgeted
Permanent and Temporary Positions. Valuation Staff (column 2) includes both real property
appraisers and business property auditor-appraisers. Column 3, Valuation Staff per Clerk, is column 2
divided by column 1. Column 5, Roll Value per Clerk, is the total roll value (column 4) divided by the
clerical staff (column 1). Column 7, Roll Units per Clerk, is the total roll units (column 6) divided by
column 1.
XIV
SECTION II. BUDGET
AND
'PERSONNEL
STATISTICS
I
I
I
.
A Report on Budgets, Workloads, and Assessment Appeal Activities 1994-95
TABLE A
BUDGET DATA & COSTS OF SELECTED PROGRAMS
Cost of
Services
From Other
Depts.
(2)
Salaries
and
Wages
(1)
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Fresno+
Glenn*
Humboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kern+
Kings
Lake*+
Lassen
Los Angeles
Madera
Marin
Mariposa+
Mendocino
Merced
Modoc
Mono
Monterey#
Napa
Nevada
Orange
Placer
Plumas
Riverside
Sacramento
San Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego#
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo#
Santa Barbara #
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
Shasta+
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano+
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity**#
Tulare#
Tuolumne+
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba
Totals
$8,414,714
93,992
395,891
1,526,064
689,373
450,748
6,904,781
357,862
1,891,902
5,371,314
357,773
1,221,920
754,967
514,010
5,333,392
878,316
843,425
263,096
66,381,000
921,448
3,587,646
500,789
914,246
1,518,614
269,262
360,100
2,214,249
952,709
1,416,823
12,460,504
2,921,788
404,770
7,750,485
7,984,781
. 456,955
6,887,481
12,519,486
4,394,200
3,704,860
2,786,035
6,865,186
3,109,189
14,136,211
1,531.412
1,660,162
253,376
810,814
1,815,990
3,582,059
2,635,198
677,431
589,266
325,398
2,143,426
603,312
5,189,100
1,022,457
569,220
$1,048,327
0
19,805
276,084
94,696
0
671,963
0
230,508
478,472
0
76,750
0
0
685,646
201,022
14,228
NIA
16,542,000
NIA
35,500
0
0
175,255
0
0
536,163
7,600
0
1,993,494
51,015
0
1,806,372
242,102
0
414,717
0
217,161
70,656
146,605
1,350,606
254,492
374,864
0
126,562
0
40,875
424,735
351,683
266,532
110,392
0
18,240
478,134
0
728,900
19,629
0
Other
Costs
(3)
$353,893
10,414
40,713
37,450
31,246
49,553
343,011
43,460
149,518
392,160
74,128
122,076
322,781
247,849
339,864
25,870
92,413
2,725,000
NIA
176,463
37,585
56,872
119,693
17,350
92,400
168,737
46,074
139,670
2,951,041
278,670
30,051
582.461
1,371,603
33,660
818,407
1,651,054
1,282,107
376,892
125,675
3,260,575
476,604
982,466
354,355
148,004
21,152
69,060
169,123
473,726
202,214
103,206
0
18,023
191,304
70,691
222,200
104,342
43,280
$225,090,978 $30,581,785 $22,668, 189
Gross
Budget
(4)
$9,816,934
104,406
456,409
1,839,598
815,315
500,301
7,919,755
401,322
2,271,928
6,241,946
431,901
1,420,746
1,077,748
761,859
6,358,902
1,079,338
883,523
355,509
85,648,000
921,448
3,799,609
538,374
971,118
1,813,562
286,612
452,500
2,919,149
1,006,383
1,556,493
17,405,039
3,251,473
434,821
10,139,318
9,598,486
490,615
8,120,605
14,170,540
5,893,468
4,152,408
3,058,315
11,476,367
3,840,285
15,493,541
1,885,767
1,934,728
274,528
920,749
2,409,848
4,407,468
3,103,944
891,029
589,266
361,661
2,812,864
674,003
6,140,200
1,146,428
612,500
Services
to Other
Depts.
(5)
Map
Sales
(6)
$505
0
80
0
0
0
21,622
0
0
115,793
0
0
0
0
1,728
0
5,380
0
406,000
$63,206
564
2,976
0
1,098
0
41,347
0
0
16,250
0
15,174
11.494
864
20,788
2,221
8,972
4,800
74,661
8,470
5,662
4,500
5,183
In#8
In#lO
936
4,000
6,000
2,998
69,611
17,488
0
1,195
71,854
3,500
165,000
45,283
0
In #10
9,541
Other Income
Fees for
Fees for
Property Copies&
Details
Info.
(7)
(8)
$15,946
0
5,813
18,304
0
0
20,294
0
2,500
60,000
$83,072
0
0
0
0
0
98,318
0
3,828
250
0
0
0
10,115
0
10,262
300
0
4,621
1,300
0
0
200
0
Fees for
On-Line
Access
(9)
Other
(See
Appendix 1)
(10)
$0 $3,852,247
2,068
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
681,310
0
0
851,738
0
1,860,000
3,500
2,500
274,661
0
10,303
0
0
2,853
NIA 1,355,877
43,229
18,250
111,530
900
0
0 37,775,339
Net
Budget
(11)
111,235
9,279
1,807,000
520,624
183,156
$5,801,958
101,774
447,540
1,821,294
814,217
500,301
7,056,864
401,322
1,413,862
. 4,186,153
429,401
1,120,649
1,055,651
758,142
4,965,773
1,014,338
757,641
349,609
47,392,000
912,978
3,747,110
533,874
886,675
1,794,929
268,581
451,564
2,915,149
894,252
1,542,169
15,465,625
2,289,336
411,880
5,525,361
5,467,591
307,479
6,467,605
12,928,187
5,893,468
4,124,408
3,020,229
5,751,274
2,774,493
15,034,992
1,850,584
1,274,892
270,603
914,241
2,137,221
4,239,553
2,663,501
871,193
583,609
359,263
2,689,257
662,029
4,318,200
600,814
420,444
$278,340,952 $2,774,003 $838,355 $6,331,042 $503,439 $159,129 $64,081,882
$203,653,102
NIA
NIA
0
0
In#8
14,000
0
0
6,000
0
0
944,649
0
411,770
21,800
0
0
NIA
0
In #10
NIA
15,000
1,035,253
0
0
22,128
0
0
115,000
0
0
0
175
0
0
120
0
15,785
12,492
9,860
3,925
6,508
15,104
41,915
5,000
4,355
5,657
2,223
9,000
2,695
15,000
3,200
NIA
NIA
27,000
0
0
ln#8
In #10
0
0
4,615
0
63,384
0
0
212,883
9,500
0
31,000
61,Q98
0
In #10
0
5,651,893
13,593
55,079
0
0
0
0
38,035
14,077
0
29,879
18,633
In#lO
0
0
500
232
3,884
0
0
18,483
1,100
0
h\#7
79,314
0
In#lO
17,315
55,000
14,251
0
16,552
9,030
6,000
2,400
0
0
3,372
0
In#6
9,131
5,700
0
15,739
0
3,895
11,291
0
0
3,900
NIA
NIA
0
0
In#8
In #10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
115,000
NIA
0
In #10
NIA
0
11,807
1,272
0
0
0
THESE TOTALS ARE INCOJMPLETE AND REPRESENT A SUM:MARY OF FURNISHED DATA ONLY. NIA= Not Available or Not Applicable 0 =Zero - = No Response to This Item • 1993-94 data; no data provided for 1994-95 •• 1992-93 data; no data provided for 1994-95
# County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk
+ County Assessor/Recorder
Page 1
NIA
5,760
0
49,381
. In #8
4,031
0
0
95,016
11,094
1,802,535
0
22,941
4,332,626
4,026,641
179,636
1,342,000
1,056,658
0
28,000
11,230
3,200
1,161
387,083
23,376
615,285
0
0
100,588
120,000
402,240
6,451
A Report on Budgets, Workloads, and Assessment Appeal Activities 1994-95
i;'ABLE A (CONTINUED) BUDGET DATA & COSTS OF SELECTED PROGRAMS 1992-93
Gross
Budget
(12)
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Fresno+
Glenn*
Hwnboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kern+
Kings
Lake*+
Lassen
Los Angeles
Madera
Marin
Mariposa+
Mendocino
Merced
Modoc
Mono
Monterey#
Napa
Nevada
Orange
Placer
Plumas
Riverside
Sacramento
San Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego#
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo#
Santa Barbara #
Santa Oara
Santa Cruz
Shasta+
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano+
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity**#
Tulare#
Tuolumne+
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba
Totals
$9,606,324
105,131
481,798
2,210,345
840,009
518,594
7,924,125
362,562
2,575,313
6,196,012
434,554
1,253,327
1,043,027
607,394
6,750,150
1,069,396
912,024
412,201
102,497,000
3,856,848
429,392
929,293
J,809,541
266,322
428,500
2,911,474
997,550
1,705,097
. 16,790,408
3,253,385
467,205
9,994,242
9,742,577
484,206
8,723,762
13,326,996
6,438,527
4,514,579
3,245,942
7,542,660
3,401,971
14,837,917
2,160,688
1,923,424
266,348
1,085,556
2,226,325
4,419,001
3,795,457
940,458
731,814
361,661
2,377,292
763,890
6,123,200
1,212,371
614,162
$290,899,327
1993-94
Gross
Budget
(13)
%
Change
from
1992-93
(14)
$9,211,319
-4%
467,457
1,921,029
859,566
488,392
7,602,766
407,326
2,400,804
6,020,122
431,901
1,265,631
1,037,551
635,875
6,854,569
972,147
883,523
347,728
91,641,000
936,214
3,546,274
456,429
908,930
1,772,421
279,048
439,700
2,902,951
971,433
1,585,284
17,603,603
3,187,926
415,711
9,883,317
9,376,474
436,319
7,925,180
12,691,701
6,060,437
4,280,449
3,086,852
7,207,729
3,680,093
14,348,008
1,925,086
2,157,373
259,090
946,967
2,265,468
4,374,046
3,163,144
822,954
659,146
-3%
-13%
2%
-6%
-4%
12%
-7%
-3%
-1%
1o/o
-1%
5%
2%
-9%
-3%
-16%
-11%
O/o
1994-95
Gross
Budget
(15)
Change
from
1993-94
(16)
$9,816,934
104,406
456,409
1,839,598
815,315
500,301
7,919,755
401,322
2,271,928
6,241,946
7%
-1%
-2%
-4%
-5%
2%
4%
-1%
-5%
4%
1,420,746
1,077,748
761,859
6,358,902
1,079,338
12%
4%
20%
-7%
11%
-8%
6%
-2%
-2%
5%
3%
0%
-3%
-7%
5%
-2%
-11%
-1%
-4%
-10%
-9%
-5%
-6%
-5%
-5%
-4%
8%
-3%
-11%
12%
-3%
-13%
2%
-1%
-17%
-12%
-10%
355,509
85,648,000
921,448
3,799,609
538,374
971,118
1,813,562
286,612
452,500
2,919,149
1,006,383
1,556,493
17,405,039.
3,251,473
434,821
10,139,318
9,598,486
490,615
8,120,605
14,170,540
5,893,468
4,152,408
3,058,315
11,476,367
3,840,285
15,493,541
1,885,767
1,934,728
274,528
920,749
2,409,848
4,407,468
3,103,944
891,029
589,266
2%
-7%
-2%
7%
18%
7%
2%
3%
3%
1%
4%
-2%
-1%
2%
5%
3%
2%
12%
2%
12%
-3%
-3%
-1%
'59%
4%
8%
-2%
-10%
6%
-3%
6%
1%
-2%
8%
-11%
2,842,365
719,291
6,772,200
1,129,932
614,162
20%
-6%
11%
-7%
0%
2,812,864
674,003
6,140,200
1,146,428
612,500
-1%
-6%
-9%
1%
0%
$276,082,413
-5%
$276,663,867
0%
Data Processing Costs
Provided
Services
by Other
Implemented
Cowity
Internally
Depts.
(19)
(18)
Exemption
Program
Costs
Included
in Budget
(17)
$336,534
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
$744,933
0
NIA
NIA
NIA
0
301,968
0
611,326
0
363,422
62,280
191,386
230,508
478,472
75,000
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
48,261
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
0
NIA
NIA
NIA
20,000
NIA
519,490
106,136
0
NIA
253,283
NIA
NIA
247,990
0
NIA
38,840
666,117
NIA
3,000
NIA
NIA
NIA
76,750
0
NIA
25,891
143,169
NIA
32,208
5,856,000
NIA
NIA
NIA
0
175,255
NIA
521,901
7,600
NIA
NIA
0
NIA
71,194
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
0
NIA
NIA
0
NIA
NIA
1,970,104
0
0
1,053,574
237,604
1,349,005
0
0
NIA
471.517
176,564
70,656
507,639
614,634
183,214
164,405
779,242
66,815
0
40,879
NIA
419,280
NIA
NIA
2,010,933
0
NIA
NIA
174,638
939,874
NIA
0
0
250,000
110,000
351,683
0
0
86,620
0
0
0
NIA
376,527
0
419,100
14,760
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
0
NIA
27,500
NIA
$2,932,785
$16,489,550
THESE TOTALS ARE INCOMPLETE AND REPRESENT A SUMMARY OF FURNISHED DATA ONLY. NIA =Not Available or Not Applicable 0 =Zero - =No Response to This Item * 1993-94 data; no data provided for 1994-95 ** 1992-93 data; no data provided for 1994-95 + County Assessor/Recorder # County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk Page2
$0
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
0
0
$5,653,346
A Report on Budgets, Workloads, and Assessment Appeal Activities 1994-95
TABLEB
BUDGETED PERMANENT POSITIONS
(In Person Years)
%
Assessor
& Other
Man~gers
(1)
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Fresno+
Glenn*
Humboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kem+
Kings
Lake*+
Lassen
Los Angeles
Madera
Marin
Mariposa+
Mendocino
Merced
Modoc
Mono
Monterey#
Napa
Nevada
Orange
Placer
Plumas
Riverside
Sacramento
San Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego#
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo#
Santa Barbara #
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
Shasta+
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano+
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity**#
Tulare#
Tuolunme+
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba
Totals
10
1
2
2
3
1
7
3
3
4
1
3
2
2
5
3
2
2
53
3
3
1
3
5
2
1
4
3
3
7
5
1
12
8
1
6
11
7
5
5
6
7
11
5
3
I
3
4
4
3
2
3
1
2
3
3
3
3
272.0
Certified Appraisers
Real
Business Cadastral
Other
Property
Property
DraftsTeclutical/
All
Appraisers Appraisers persons Professional Clerical
(2)
(4)
(3)
(5)
(6)
59
0
2
13
5
3
50
2
16
42
5
10
8
2
38
7
8
3
346
14
23
4
9
10
2
5
17
7
11
75
20
2
63
60
4
58
69
37
25
24.5
42
25
74
9
15
1.8
6
14
21
27
6
3
3
23
5
34
6
4
1,477.3
27
0
1
1
0.5
1
12
1
2
14
3
3
1
13
3
2
0
135
2
4
1
2
4
1
1
7
3
1
56
4
1
9
20
6
0
1
3
2
1
5
0.5
3
8
7
6
3
1
1
7
1
11
3
2
2
4
8
2
3.2
0.2
3
4
6
2
1
1
1
3
1
16
1
1
3
0
0
1
0
2
1
147
0
5.5
0
1
2
0
0
2
0
1
15
9
0
15
4
0
25
36.5
1
11
7
21
9.8
11
3
2
0
0
7
2
I
0
1
0
8
0
7
0
0
523.0
241.9
394.3
1
8
30
20
7
4.5
11
6
46
2
4
0
1
5
1
2
1
5
1
1
1
42
3
15
1
0
1
0
3
5
0.5
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
16
4
1
16
5
1
7
26
1
5
2
66.08
0
3.5
18
5
1
47
2
19
57
5
11
8
5
32
6
6
0.5
762
10
17
4
6
9
2
3
18
7.5
13
136
23
3
50
53
5
48
106.5
41
23
24
26
18
100
10.8
13
2.7
8
10
26
16
9
6
3
10
3.5
25
12
5.5
1,960.6
1994-95
Total
Staff
(7)
183.08
2
9.5
38
15.5
10
126
9
46
129
11
31
23
11
94
20
21
7.5
1,485
32
53.5
11
22
31
8
11
49
22.5
32
305
65
8
165
150
12
152
279
107
76
67
108
69.8
250
31.8
40.2
5.7
21
44
66
55
21
15
9
53
13.5
96
25
15.5
4,869.1
O/o
Change
Change
1993-94 From 1992-93 From
Total 1993-94
Total 1992-93
Staff to 94-95
Staff to 93-94
(9)
(8)
(10)
(11)
176
2
10
38
15.5
10
126
9
47
130
11
31
23
12
99
19
21
7.5
1,495
32
48
11
21
33
8
13
50
22.5
30
337
65
7
164
147
10
165.
279
97
78
67
106
61
250
37
40.2
4.7
21
45
66
55
20.5
18
9
53
14
113
24
15.5
4,919.4
4%
0%
-5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
-2%
-1%
0%
0%
0%
-8%
-5%
5%
0%
0%
-1%
0%
11%
0%.
5%
-6%
0%
-15%
-2%
0%
7%
-9%
0%
14%
1%
2%
20%
-8%
0%
10%
-3%
0%
2%
14%
0%
-14%
0%
21%
0%
-2%
0%
0%
2%
-17%
0%
0%
-4%
-15%
4%
0%
-1%
183
2
10.5
49
16
10
128
8
54
130
11
33
23
12
103
20
22.4
10
1,682
28
79.5
11
21.17
35
8
13
51
23
36
337
65
10
183
156
11
189
304
110
81
73.5
113
60
253
38.3
40.2
5.03
22
44
71
65
20.5
20
9
54
16
129
26
15.5
5,333.6
THESE TOTALS ARE INCOMPLETE AND REPRESENT A SUMMARY OF FURNISHED DATA ONLY.
NIA= Not Available or Not Applicable 0 =Zero - =No Response to 'Ibis Item
* 1993-94 data; no data provided for 1994-95 ** 1992-93 data; no data provided for 1994-95
# County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk
+ County Assessor/Recorder
Page3
-4%
0%
-5%
-22%
-3%
0%
-2%
13%
-13%
0%
0%
-6%
0%
0%
-4%
-5%
-6%
-25%
-11%
14%
-40%
0%
-1%
-6%
0%
0%
-2%
-2%
-17%
0%
0%
-30%
-10%
-6%
-9%
-13%
-8%
-12%
-4%
-9%
-6%
2%
-1%
-3%
0%
-7%
-5%
2%
-7%
-15%
0%
-10%
0%
-2%
-13%
-12%
-8%
0%
-8%
A Report on Budgets, Work.loads, and Assessment Appeal Activities 1994-95
TABLEC
BUDGETED TEMPORARY POSITIONS
(In Person Years)
Business
Property
AuditorAppraisers
(2)
Real Property
Appraisers
(1)
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Fresno+
Glenn*
Humboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kern+
Kings
Lake*+
Lassen
Los Angeles
Madera
Marin
Mariposa+
Mendocino
Merced
Modoc
Mono
Monterey#
Napa
Nevada
Orange
Placer
Plumas
Riverside
Sacramento
San Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego#
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo#
Santa Barbara #
Santa aara
Santa Cruz
Shasta+
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano+
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity**#
Tulare#
Tuolumne+
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba
Totals
0
Other
Technical/
Professional
(4)
Drafting/
Mapping
(3)
0
0
Total
(6)
aerical
(5)
0
0.55
0.11
O.Q7
0
0.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.4
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.69
0
0
0
0
0.7
0.52
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.33
0
0
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
0.5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3.2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
12.38
0
0
0
l
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0.38
0.25
2
0.5
0.5
5.73
O.o?
0.69
2
33.49
THESE TOTALS ARE INCOMPLETE AND REPRESENT A SUMMARY OF FURNISHED DATA ONLY. NIA= Not Available or Not Applicable 0 =Zero - = No Response to This Item * 1993-94 data; no data provided for 1994-95 ** 1992-93 data; no data provided for 1994-95 # County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk + County Assessor/Recorder
Page4
0.55
0
0
0.18
0
0
3.8
0
0
5
0
0.7
1.21
0.5
0
0
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.83
0
0
0
0
0.5
0
1
0
0
4.2
0
2
2
12.38
0
0
0
0.38
0.25
3
1.5
0
0
0
0
0.5
0
0
0
- 41.98
I
SECTION III.
.
.
LOCAL ROLL AND .WORKLOAD. STATISTICS .
.
A Report on Budgets, Workloads, and Assessment Appeal Activities 1994-95
TABLED
LOCAL ROLL VALUE AND STATISTICS
Secured Roll
Full Value
inOOO's
(1}
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Fresno+
Glenn*
Humboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kem+
Kings
Lake*+
Lassen
Los Angeles
Madera
Marin
Mariposa+
Mendocino
Merced
Modoc
Mono
Monterey#
Napa
Nevada
Orange
Placer
Plumas
Riverside
Sacramento
San Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego#
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo#
Santa Barbara #
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
Shasta+
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano+
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity**#
Tulare#
Tuolumne+
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba
Totals
$73,039,825
177,098
2,030,769
8,331,745
2,548,821
1,348,435
62,394,320
855,854
9,547,794
28,019,892
1,316,151
4,934,824
5,004,442
2,475,418
31,060,088
3,699,877
2,937,618
1,111,573
489,962,296
4,912,746
21,499,218
932,610
4,269,551
7,228,877
558,117
1,658,198
19,335,718
8,658,756
5,991,894
165,693,755
15,489,719
1,909,079
71,975,652
50,287,517
2,289,118
71,028,107
140,737,545
51,905,395
21,681,234
17,473,911
50,054,887
23,203,120
102,901,839
14,089,131
7,535,042
305,510
2,003,584
17,365,298
26,657,367
16,961,799
3,449,169
2,248,575
597,326
12,046,502
3,099,638
42,708,299
7,376,058
2,036,188
$1,750,952,889
Supplemental Roll
Roll
Roll
Value
Units
(in OOO's}
(7)
(8)
Unsecured Roll
Full Value
inOOO's
(2)
$6,161,399
20,628
66,745
426,874
46,441
74,443
2,900,045
39,175
229,629
1,717,224
61,251
359,533
634,972
38,076
1,984,604
148,920
320,574
107,388
29,153,172
193,342
835,467
133,129
183,884
376,177
17,760
231,701
973,548
390,162
186,543
11,369,620
538,017
53,032
2,644,822
3,173,010
94,990
4,213,896
6,954,576
5,356,479
1,450,122
448,898
6,599,435
1,651,882
12,046,040
574,517
431,957
38,062
181,919
741,930
1,100,154
836,425
253,676
82,168
38,451
558,842
117,585
2,257,326
487,355
129,470
43,590
52,536
2,303
$7,509,391
$48,243
$112,437,462
862,490
$32,239,068
NIA
18,060
NIA
2,403
NIA
$52,398
$250,000
$517
NIA
NIA
30,998
1,889
5,943.
31,770
$10,689
$40,873
5,368
6,168
1,153
34,350
NIA
2,341
NIA
11,814
1,317
54,879
NIA
935
1,077
NIA
NIA
3,915
88,497
17,789
1,880
65,811
46,652
2,247
78,778
74,434
9,016
18,285
11,388
9,938
11,125
28,577
4,923
9,073
592
2,277
7,969
20,071
9,884
2,763
3,777
1,473
19,901
2,561
NIA
THESE TOTALS ARE INCOMPLETE AND REPRESENT A SUMMARY OF FURNISHED DATA ONLY. NIA= Not Available or Not Applicable 0 = Zero - =No Response to This Item * 1993-94 data~ no data provided for 1994-95 ** 1992-93 data; no data provided for 1994-95 + County Assessor/Recorder # County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk Page5
$3,066,714
NIA
$884,367
$207,122
$373,820
$19,843
NIA
NIA
$257
NIA
$1,044,684
$197,717
$844
NIA
$7,732
NIA
$1,551
$235,621
$5,441,674
$559,156
NIA
$9,557
$1,469,890
$120,777
$927,809
$2,513,649
$817,607
$720,679
$2,204
$770,899
$721,278
$1,999,262
$2,545
$287,177
$5,186
$58,138
$314,845
$880,383
$2,476
NIA
$75,323
$521,578
$64,593
NIA
A Report on Budgets, Workloads, and Assessment Appeal Activities 1994-95
TABLEE
DISTRIBUTION OF ·LOCAL ROLL BY PROPERTY TYPES
(SECURED ROLL)
Smgle
Family
Residence
(1)
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Fresno+
Glenn•
Humboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kern+
Kings
Lake•+
Lassen
Los Angeles
Madera
Marin
Mariposa+
Mendocino
Merced
Modoc
Mono
Monterey#
Napa
Nevada
Orange
Placer
Plumas
Riverside
Sacramento
San Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego#
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo#
Santa Barbara#
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
Shasta+
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano+
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity••#
Tulare#
Tuolumne+
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba
Totals
308,120
NIA
8,684
NIA
13,681
NIA
Residential
MultiFamily
Vacant
Residence
Land
(2)
(3)
33,453
NIA
316
NIA
1,872
NIA
13,387
NIA
4,232
NIA
10,005
NIA
256,556
8,006
54,631
16i,844
7,477
201
1,980
5,660
13,528
4,471
20,388
17,836
28,926
23,487
7,214
140,833
2,750
940
497
8,499
8,368
25,468
1,637
120,077
358
In#l
241,023
31,046
2,105
116,998
70,227
5,169
10,359
17,192
924
NIA
NIA
9,420
NIA
17,538
12,785
1,643,747
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
1,856
30
841
72,998
21,888
33,664
612,425
67,592
5,357
2,036
908
27,589
2,655
6,558
1,620
15,833
17,507
18,185
388,493
294,089
9,059
411,895
598,127
112,296
113,165
65,669
178,585
90,682
367,528
62,267
45,522
1,540
30,517
94,480
117,070
90,736
15,783
15,705
4,115
86,063
21,592
181,892
31,066
11,013
7,298
19,238
359
31,066
43,779
35,446
9,128
4,372
5,532
7,063
19,951
4,147
2,008
24
832
3,363
6,007
5,503
1,521
518
523
2,667
937
7,054
2,226
2,072
137,089
17,780
1,288
91,599
51,441
6,306
8,256
14,622
6,712
4,672
8,632
11,624
12,717
948
In#l
6,116
15,656
4,701
1,947
8,437
4,621
In#l,#2
7,827
12,161
2,529
2,025
7,022,843
572,328
NIA
Total
(4)
Improved
Vacant
Land
Total
(5)
(6)
(7)
1,326
354,960
0
13,232
0
25,558
0
277,561
12,678
76,999
185,340
0
40,044
49,895
9,348
269,409
0
48,942
14,890
2,001,768
0
85,755
0
27,536
0
2,727
0
84,913
25,544
50,405
657,521
88,432
Vacant
NIA
NIA
381
241
4,414
1,705
1,107
24,437
2,801
704
445
283
1,817
1,315
532,880
331,107
10,706
534,560
693,347
154,048
130,549
84,663
190,829
102,417
396,111
78,038
60,247
2,512
31,349
103,959
138,733
100,940
19,251
24,660
9,259
88,730
30,356
201,107
35,821
15,110
17,984
11,499
477
15,136
20,789
15,670
6,564
4,815
6,591
3,269
13,206
2,881
3,370
102
2,692
2,683
3,758
4,935
848
754
370
4,936
898
5,412
1,898
2,090
9,988
2,240
52
9,595
. 3,728
In#3
1,114
1,232
3,356
464
396
492
1,278
26
In #5
867
1,148
1,224
161
249
43
In#5
201
772
484
435
16,860
0
884
0
1,008
0
7,913
1,517
2,264
10,802
0
2,529
4,371
871
11,705
0
2,631
793
99,411
0
3,402
0
2,410
0
622
0
5,118
2,150
1,390
26,254
4,116
0
27,972
13,739
529
24,731
24,517
15,670
7,678
6,047
9,947
3,733
13,602
3,373
4,648
128
2,692
3,550
4,906
6,159
1,009
1,003
413
4,936
1,099
6,184
2,382
2,525
8,504,746
328,233
73,960
402,193
15,534
NIA
NIA
679
205
NIA
NIA
634
374
NIA
NIA
6,634
668
1,696
9,215
1,279
849
568
1,587
2,191
2,095
795
8,593
338
2,276
76
3,112
NIA
NIA
1,973
585
83,654
658
208
15,757
2,832
570
1,983
427
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
0
909,575
Industrial
Commercial
Improved
(8)
6,592
NIA
45
NIA
35
NIA
(9)
l,812
NIA
58
NIA
79
.NIA
2,204
70
322
3,919
797
7
427
969
349
494
847
8,593
305
348
11
2,814
NIA
32
61
37,320
NIA
14
43
11,757
NIA
NIA
579
138
243
117
NIA
NIA
10
17
752
254
218
11,393
573
264
276
206
916
553
NIA
In#5
3,598
132 '
5,839
7,038
2,676
1,814
935
3,079.
1,120
6,412
550
325
12
745
824
1,597
1,587
394
262
14
947
49
3,418
712
292
119,276
THESE TOTALS ARE INCOMPLETE AND REPRESENT A SUMMARY OF FURNISHED DATA ONLY. NIA= Not Available or Not Applicable 0 =Zero -=No Response to This Item * 1993-94 data; no data provided for 1994-95 "'* 1992-93 data; no data provided for 1994-95 + County Assessor/Recorder
# County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk
Page6
Land
NIA
In#6
2,062
55
6,898
3,069
In#3
816
307
3,356
362
97
134
363
4
In#8
684
513
In#6
132
77
4
In#8
37
1,264
324
318
42,804
Total
(10)
8,404
0
103
0
114
0
3,001
77
749
4,888
0
654
842
858
11,407
0
46
104
49,077
0
717
0
360
0
27
0
1,016
530
424
12,309
1,126
0
0
5,660
187
12,737
10,107
2,676
2,630
1,242
6,435
1,482
6,509
684
688
16
745
1,508
2,110
1,587
526
339
18
947
86
4,682
1,036
610
162,080
A Report on Budgets, Work.loads, and Assessment Appeal Activities 1994-95
TABLE E (CONTINUED)
DISTRIBUTION OF LOCAL ROLL BY PROPERTY TYPES
(SECURED ROLL)
Miscellaneous
Rural
Non-irrigated
(12)
Irrigated
(11)
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Fresno+
Glenn"'
Humboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kern
Kings
Lake*+
Lassen
Los Angeles
Madera
Marin
Mariposa+
Mendocino
Merced
Modoc
Mono
Monterey#
Napa
Nevada
Orange
Placer
Plumas
Riverside
Sacramento
San Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego#
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo#
Santa Barbara #
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
Shasta+
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano+
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity"'*#
Tulare#
Tuolumne+
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba
Totals
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
Restricted
(13)
In#l4
NIA
1,086
4,854
NIA
N/A
2,766
0
NIA
630
215
783
2,643
12,358
NIA
8,065
5,763
46
11,950
2,663
1,264
7,985
NIA
2,180
NIA
373
NIA
NIA
Vacant
(14)
Total
(15)
4,029
NIA
5,436
NIA
NIA
1,313
712
500
707
1,271
14.494
5,282
NIA
0
440
7,572
6,079
17,650
4,427
17,355
o·
0
In #11,12
NIA
342
2,503
1,809
NIA
NIA
63,037
NIA
NIA
25
817
1,165
3,039
NIA
501
NIA
9,678
0
553
1,843
10,289
0
NIA
2,197
503
0
3,558
NIA
2,821
579
372
203
1,175
6,803
6,511
2,071
1,331
11,744
0
4,709
252
878
650
In#12
607
In #11
In#ll
ln#ll
205
12,946
0
399
283
236
2,584
3,784
6
NIA
NIA
13,099
918
NIA
NIA
603
2,896
6,233
1,388
762
21,338
131
1,842
2,468
3,375
5,002
In#ll
In #11
449
In#4
In #11
2,492
1,998
800
1,605
2,431
1,506
2,259
811
1,394
0
6,743
3,506
706
2,147
3,163
837
2,328
473
3,970
2,430
2,109
6,616
ln#ll
5,001
861
In#ll
1,285
1,539
3,324
157
132,153
84,698
101,978
NIA
In #12
*
NIA
5,479
Secured
Possessory
Interests
(16)
NIA
8
NIA
809
NIA
46
913
0
NIA
351
ln#ll
170
99,979
479
0
263
11,443
558
0
56
0
3,649
206
In #12
3,605
141
4,472
In #11
100
In#ll
0
797
Ill
4,029
0
6,522
0
11,449
712
3,896
1,362
2,054
31,304
0
21,716
26,076
5,737
37,290
37,623
2,895
2,503
63,037
0
1,351
0
24,504
0
4,803
0
7,774
11,371
372
3,761
1,175
0
9,585
8,017
4,500
102,326
26,563
0
12,114
15,484
2,378
S,381
7,003
1,450
5,977
679
9,449
6,035
7,855
13,984
6,233
6,938
1,623
21,338
3,908
6,176
6,592
5,248
318,829
Oil, Gas&
Mineral
(17)
Others
(18)
6261
829
7,441
0
0
4
0
396
24
3,134
209
5,904
1
19,875
363
0
1,109
730
674
29,810
293
152
5,109
30,601
53
383
0
69
0
19,120
0
7,167
5,074
0
35,044
7,786
0
38,848
13,847
10
6,784
54,572
0
2,464
14,352
3,154
5,058
3,715
6,685
16,207
579
474
7,785
7,244
2,601
2,154
78
1,117
6,600
1,848
8,396
165
448
306,995
378,269
4
NIA
176
0
NIA
0
2
1
1,426
4
0
0
In #1, #5, etc.
0
194
0
0
10,439
NIA
0
NIA
200
24
1,177
209
988
0
15
359
784
26
529
28,513
99
29
77
2,460
53
0
NIA
20
NIA
1,957
NIA
4,914
0
18,434
0
325
704
145
1,297
NIA
123
5,032
17,702
NIA
383
NIA
NIA
NIA
0
0
69
NIA
NIA
NIA
0
0
19,120
2
294
0
556
0
0
381
82
6,871
5,074
0
34,107
7,704
137
0
5,440
4,064
ln#l
479
370
192
10
499
170
0
97
113
12
778
20
30
95
297
0
246
1,210
152
3,200
0
10
171
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
339
672
0
0
256
78
1,117
In#l8
347
955
165
448
27,836
43,438
NIA
38,848
13,518
0
845
50,338
0
1,888
13,869
3,142
4,128
495
6,655
16,102
111
474
7,537
6,034
2,601
1,898
0
THESE TOTALS ARE INCOMPLETE AND REPRESENT A SUMMARY OF FURNISHED DATA ONLY.
NI A =Not Available or Not Applicable 0 =Zero - = No Response to This Item
1993-94 data; no data provided for 1994-95 ** 1992-93 data; no data provided for 1994-95
+ County Assessor/Recorder
# County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk
Page7
Total
(19)
A Report on Budgets, Workloads, and Assessment Appeal Activities 1994-95
TABLE E (CONTINlJED)
DISTRIBUTION OF LOCAL ROLL BY PROPERTY TYPES
(UNSECURED ROLL)
Aircraft
{21)
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Fresno+
Glenn*
Humboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kem
Kings
Lake*+
Lassen
Los Angeles
Madera
Marin
Mariposa+
Mendocino
Merced
Modoc
Mono
Monterey#
Napa
Nevada
Orange
Placer
Plumas
Riverside
Sacramento
San Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego#
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo#
Santa Barbara #
SantaOara
Santa Cruz
Shasta+
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano+
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity**#
Tulare#
Tuolwnne+
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba
Totals
Boats
(22)
Personalty
& Fixtures
(23)
130
683
38
358
680
136
200
194
85
922
126
130
35
3,871
133
69
51
189
247
39
33
374
319
265
989
400
59
1,841
685
229
1,730
2,072
0
388
463
403
580
1,172
271
294
6
109
201
911
297
170
90
14,901
10
1,049
2,720
1,387
743
29,227
512
4,008
6,686
440
2,553
1,483
453
3,237
1,916
6,761
409
52,514
1,141
689
453
2,026
1,850
293
213
6,126
1,646
2,511
37,180
5,761
1,407
4,163
18,170
564
20,019
19,448
2,073
10,296
12,499
11,065
6,133
12,475
2,707
7,308
179
711
4,617
8,199
5,338
3,143
1,372
33,726
67
1,060
2,667
881
1,179
23,698
433
2,945
19,200
1,243
3,469
4,180
988
17,062
1,170
1,372
412
232,195
500
211
931
176
112
8,022
1,790
16,733
1,326
2,181
11,034
1,531
20,675
5,460
1,034
25,900
372,836
921,506
895
0
83
275
50
NIA
3,263
902
7,200
3,577
294
12,644
3,366
4,663
92,300
6,882
851
27,418
45,959
1,284
32,208
65,945
47,797
12,039
11,986
18,391
15,349
72,1~5
7,379
5,090
164
1,165
6,318
12,564
12,409
2,283
NIA
Unsecured
Possessory
Interests
(24)
4,029
94
109
205
84
69
2,382
376
214
1,353
884
580
368
623
213
145
311
233
NIA
999
316
490
0
254
451
1,638
258
357
2,943
291
NIA
1,840
61
0
0
2,674
479
0
2,492
2,116
1,396
1,171
1,507
1,093
711
606
862
436
42
133
297
678
435.
1,881
130
145
41,454
Escapes from
Prior Years'
Manufactured
Leasehold
Rolls
Improvements
Homes
(27)
(26)
(25)
Other
(28)
0
13
0
3,350
859
0
139
48
853
195
66
703
0
105
59,155
227
2,981
8,942
2,496
2,121
60,652
1,380
7,714
29,424
1,819
7,829
7,321
1,894
25,717
5,367
8,599
1,300
335,720
5,293
5,913
1,725
12,516
7,637
961
1,542
21,190
6,729
9,821
135,812
14,827
3,418
33,458
73,950
2,138
68,778
90,226
53,767
23,337
26,499
32,645
25,371
89,137
11,635
14,199
1,503
3,396
11,937
22,536
22,960
6,255
4,123
297
20,386
4,015
44,423
8,849
3,643
45,796
20,577
45,882
23,554
1,497,505
716
9
NIA
NIA
NIA
1,427
14
0
290
0
650
3,075
NIA
NIA
NIA
1,140
1,834
1,082
NIA
NIA
0
In#23
13,234
0
0
NIA
0
In #1
107
0
0
0
0
4,306
12
In#l
0
0
NIA
NIA
NIA
0
0
0
17
98
251
113
NIA
. 95
0
2,305
1,963
0
76
432
771
38
15,779
0
NIA
18
1,037
2,612
237
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
22,890
NIA
NIA
44
746
3
200
0
4
NIA
70
0
77
56
402
0
In#23
411
191
2,400
867
In#23
1,587
435
50
135
1,551
294
In#23
6,429
0
0
2,326
1,173
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
465
1,869
NIA
NIA
44
500
195
16
200
174
124
314
NIA
NIA
47
NIA
3,235
4
91
454
0
In #1,#26
971
NIA
4,598
0
30
0
40
0
0
1,261
734
191
NIA
8,238
4,019
103
0
36
0
0
789
6
0
0
0
1,101
36
0
0
0
0
728
90
0
0
1
0
0
NIA
196
24
285
2,190
NIA
NIA
THESE TOTALS ARE INCOMPLETE AND REPRESENT A SUMMARY OF FURNISHED DATA ONLY. NIA= Not Available or Not Applicable 0 =Zero - =No Response to This Item * 1993-94 data; no data provided for 1994-95 ** 1992-93 data; no data provided for 1994-95 + County Assessor/Recorder # County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk Page8
:i]::rn1:::1:W:~~~1·:
::tt:t:?@~9~:
,:::::::.=::::::.::::::I~~;;::
•1
1111111
::tt:t:=:4i~§.~::
::::=::::::::i~~'m~,~~::
}tt=:+::~~i~::
11~1
111111
t:=:x::Yl4.,~,~(;.::
:::::::::::::::::::::::11111::
:-::::~~i@$.M".::::
r
A Report on Budgets, Workloads, and Assessment Appeal Activities 1994-95
TABLEF
REAL PROPERTY WORKLOAD DATA
(See Table 0 for Worldoad/StatJComparisons)
Transfers
Single
Family
Transfers
(1)
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Fresno+
Glenn*
Humboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kem+
Kings
Lake*+
Lassen
Los Angeles
Madera
Marin
Mariposa+
Mendocino
Merced
Modoc
Mono
Monterey#
Napa
Nevada
Orange
Placer
Plumas
Riverside
Sacramento
San Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego#
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo#
Santa Barbara #
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
Shasta+
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano+
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity**#
Tulare#
Tuolumne+
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba
Totals
23,381
All
Other
Transfers
(2)
1,100
15,685
2,083
696
315
8,234
733
16,961
2,423
600
27,106
0
1,164
5,922
1,643
1,045
20,135
2,727
13,352
20,146
733
3,654
4,280
755
18,081
2,507
3,847
1,090
228,873
0
1,692
629
0
5,476
1,044
1,154
7,460
3,454
7,364
65,235
8,370
3,502
63,513
26,391
1,553
110,818
99,849
9,016
21,303
10,260
22,905
4,608
26,039
6,534
6,560
492
6,781
16,629
10,734
18,304
2,220
2,840
543
8,234
1,833
32,646
4,506
1,296
609,223
369,624
978,847
NIA
600
NIA
728
503
19,563
1,558
4,539
11,821
NIA
1,760
NIA
10,288
1,873
NIA
In#2
182,647
3,725
Total
Transfers
(3)
NIA
564
5,922
915
542
572
1,169
8,813
8,325
733
3,654
2,520
755
7,793
634
3,847
1,090
46,226
NIA
NIA
757
935
629
NIA
289
1,154
7,460
NIA
3,547
57,833
6,491
3,502
41,697
11,557
In#2
39,322
66,326
4,804
11,298
4,104
10,400
3,792
23,028
4,786
NIA
125
884
7,921
In#2
14,881
1,372
2,840
228
NIA
5,476
755
In #1
3,454
3,817
7,402
1,879
21,816
14,834
1,553
71,496
33,523
4,212
10,005
6,156
12,505
816
3,011
1,748
6,560
367
5,897
8,708
10,734
3,423
848
Junsd1ctions
Issuing
Building
Permits
(4)
New Construction
New
Total
Building
Assessments
Resulting
Permits
From Pennits
Received
(6)
(5)
17
1
7
8,996
105
1,359
2
3
15
2
3
16
3
8
5
2
9
5
3
2
86
1,133
1,833
20,569
1,021
4,716
14,859
765
3,800
3,013
NIA
12
NIA
3
7
2
2
13
5
3
32
7
2
25
7
3 .
24
19
1
8
8
24
8
17
5
4
1
6
8
11
10
3
4
1
9
2
11
5
5
506
NIA
20,000
2,092
26,676
1,114
334,0%
NA
8,184
1,042
1,997
Construction
Discovered
Without
Pennits
(7)
5,930
NIA
4
2,000
50
745
1,012
12,113
800
2,574
9,096
213
0
24
40
1,658
2,599
308
10,136
1,385
NIA
1,065
89,550
NIA
3,477
NIA
NIA
NIA
225
50
NIA
844
242
NIA
22
NIA
NIA
0
35
231
NIA
1,030
4,929
232
307
2,058
1,674
3,416
48,567
6,979
2,193
18,245
2,960
50
100
0
0
20,923
6,978
750
12,069
18,722
400
425
200
756
NIA
465
1,442
24,064
12,297
781
43,560
13,187
22,227
13,207
9,833
23,956
6,063
20,112
5,211
4,681
203
1,809
NIA
NIA
4,9.30
NIA
45
15
NIA
NIA
NIA
3,378
407
NIA
11,500
9,885
2,948
2,011
520
4,501
2,617
6,186
1,812
3,803
165
1,175
1,224
9;500
5,282
1,541
1,508
630
NIA
NIA
1,607
28,663
4,956
1,913
1,131
8,815
1,755
957
100
785,107
293,376
10,104
THESE TOTALS ARE INCOMPLETE AND REPRESENT A SUMMARY OF FURNISHED DATA ONLY. NIA= Not Available or Not Applicable 0 =Zero - = No Response to This Item * 1993-94 data; no data provided for 1994-95 ** 1992-93 data; no data provided for 1994-95 # County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk + County Assessor/Recorder
Page9
In #6
200
NIA
8
25
5
50
NIA
1,500
14
100
290
NIA
NIA
50
6
A Report on Budgets, Workloads, and
Ass~ssment
Appeal Activities 1994-95
TABLE F (CONTINUED)
REAL PROPERTY WORKLOAD DATA
(See Table 0 for Workload/Staff Comparisons)
Uruts
Affected by
Misfortune/
Calamity
(8)
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Fresno+
Glenn*
Humboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kem
Kings
Lake*+
Lassen
Los Angeles
Madera
Marin
Mariposa+
Mendocino
Merced
Modoc
Mono
Monterey#
Napa
Nevada
Orange
Placer
Plwnas
Riverside
Sacramento
San Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego#
San Francisco
SanJoaq~
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo#
Santa Barbara #
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
Shasta+
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano+
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity**#
Tulare#
Tuolumne+
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba
Totals
55
Taxpayer Relief
Properties
Propositions
Affected by
60,90,110
Eminent
Claims
Domain
Filed
(9)
(10)
2
10
593
5
2
0
0
1
0
NIA
NIA
24
12
23
2
NIA
12
38
6
0
1
NIA
126
5
42
51
7
200
NIA
NIA
NIA
0
NIA
57
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
29
160
137
101
0
24
18
95
2
3,187
NIA
968
NIA
New
Subdivision
Lots
(13)
2,999
NIA
328
304
24
354
848
952
0
2,216
906
2,025
1,379
183
9,961
574
141
49
5,191
NIA
NIA
NIA
1
0
0
145
1
8
19
3
1,472
0
84
528
3
658
301
326
57
1,077
0
40
25
14
3,898
43
0
1,298
82
4
3,500
96
47
15
21
266
58
201
61
684
256
132
295
644
3,199
167
9,677
226
144
916
103
151
3,523
2,119
142
In#21
3,866
693
1,977
5,525
952
2,193
259
794
663
3,262
NIA
NIA
210
NIA
0
165
18
87
50
279
31
229
187
72
134
286
74
8
70
4
14
NIA
117
NIA
NIA
5
5
138
51
0
0
5
0
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
12
400
9
NIA
38
NIA
5
1,324
NIA
NIA
0
939
16
NIA
187
NIA
5,500
37,932
NIA
NIA
683
NIA
700
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
9,500
104
746
1,717
424
683
508
1,768
2,178
NIA
NIA
39
6
245
14
4
NIA
0
6,026
388
216
13
117
301
784
1,893
93
365
16
100
62
336
208
99
14,664
61,139
52,091
0
5
4
12
280
1
0
NIA
333
144,770
5,150
3,312
234
2,904
350
1,598
4,838
1,601
1,096
57,250
4,906
350
31,614
16,639
396
47,328
45,059
4,315
6,624
7,906
1,572
3,053
10,214
1,806
NIA
NIA
0
22
1,368
1,491
4,498
106
202
23
2,125
238
1,228
1,042
284
314
420
5,109
6,200
4,969
360
13,522
688
867
64,155
491,586
THESE TOTALS ARE INCOMPLETE AND REPRESENT A SUMMARY OF FURNISHED DATA ONLY. NIA = Not Available or Not Applicable 0 =Zero - =No Response'to This Item * 1993-94 data; no data provided for 1994-95 ** 1992-93 data; no data provided for 1994-95 + County Assessor/Recorder
# County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk Page 10 NIA
682
2,269
695
146
13,827
432
1,269
7,942
NIA
0
12,130
54
466
77
150
3,492
96
300
2,150
81
6,980
1,094
248
204
NIA
Roll
Corrections
(14)
81
422
438
77
436
221
420
4,681
NIA
NIA
83,546
222
0
5
21
4
637
NIA
1,750
22
17
Property
Splits
(12)
5,063
14
362
0
129
79
276
5
Appealed
Properties
(11)
363
2
9
58
NIA
NIA
77,939
Miscellaneous
NIA
NIA
405
A Report on Budgets, Workloads, and Assessment Appeal Activities 1994-95
TABLE F (CONTINUED)
REAL PROPERTY WORKLOAD DATA
(See Table 0 for Workload/Staff Comparisons)
Proposition 8
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Fresno+
Glenn*
Humboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kem
Kings
Lake"'+
Lassen
Los Angeles
Madera
Marin
Mariposa+
Mendocino
Merced
Modoc
Mono
Monterey#
Napa
Nevada
Orange
Placer
Plumas
Riverside
Sacramento
San Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego#
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo#
Santa Barbara #
Santa Oara
Santa Cruz
Shasta+
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano+
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity**#
Tulare#
Tuolumne+
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba
Totals
New
Improved
Single
Family
(11)
Improved
Multi
Family
(12)
32,421
39
311
1,297
0
423
13
22,583
23
3,075
12,051
33
1
200
0
66
413
35
3
686
8
2,781
660
108
250
9
24
25
16
NIA
NIA
3,012
NIA
NIA
In #16
41,585
NIA
13,206
69
50
4,355
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
In #11
NIA
NIA
in
Commercial
(13)
494
0
10
NIA
NIA
299
NIA
NIA
Rural
(15)
Industrial
(14)
326
0
5
NIA
9
1
0
0
86
300
9
4
NIA
In#13
N/A
NIA
14
In #16
20,793
8
12,995
NIA
NIA
NIA
666
396
60
NIA
NIA
NIA
0
125
5
65
3
70
0
0
N/A
201
310
100
0
349
1,078
174
1,000
NIA
22
NIA
NIA
In #16
NIA
0
0
125
NIA
1,786
0
419
5
13,017
0
1
9
NIA
N/A
NIA
298
11,263
NIA
0
NIA
NIA
0
NIA
NIA
NIA
7
800
N/A
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
N/A
496
12,157
4,927
N/A
65
9,874
248
18
4,416
116
0
1,320
0
826
773
706
660
In#13
335
187
39
24,569
1,824
119,181
61,341
22,667
39,226
6,865
27,500
17,485
79,288
7,413
843
4,997
3,418
In #11
254
450
456
'600
117
2,155
3,102
2,225
132
241
300
356
1,491
100
830
1.918
37
In #13
54
150
89
1,044
19
1,101
1,123
0
967
706
100
58
60
4
NIA
NIA
8,572
36,794
0
2
5,061
82
36
273
239
47
0
0
4
0
0
21,982
1,109
68
485
62
14
461
23
15
85
10
3
223
193
35
1,011
3
0
NIA
NIA
N/A
6
10
N/A
53
10
N/A
6
N/A
2,010
90
44
1,071
1,701
223,485
9,257
256
100,031
84,648
NIA
NIA
NIA
174
NIA
4,901
NIA
963,270
47
8,660
1,156
NIA
NIA
NIA
72
NIA
46,863
NIA
NIA
NIA
40,703
NIA
NIA
NIA
10,045
NIA
NIA
NIA
10,277
1994-95
(19)
Total
(17)
Others
(16)
NIA
NIA
NIA
N/A
124,979
34,608
39
451
0
2,487
328
23,988
36
19,374
14,502
800
326
1,303
937
3,333
247
0
320
86,636
0
14,328
69
65
5,345
0
1,539
14,353
1,071
2,327
259,912
15,704
256
126,319
88,279
"1,680
132,682
109,275
28,347
40,327
13,181
28,582
18,480
82,756
7,892
1,287
51
2,970
25,000
7,235
24,247
1,400
135
0
0
2,216
54,158
5,160
593
1,306,936
28,456
36
80
8,498
1,906
310
13,402
21
4,203
7,979
581
18
10,586
15
15,171
6,523
308
1,075
865
1,222
230
18
228
72
2,111
17
NIA
32,113
NIA
12,000
20
30
4,000
NIA
1,427
9,853
NIA
1,390
179,073
12,183
NIA
118,749
NIA
2,328
49
35
1,345
1,312
112
4,500
1,071
937
80,839
3,521
128,711
90,047
N/A
35,742
12,072
27,000
17,034
57,707
6,831
904
41
2,900
15,000
4,800
22,232
339
90
70,807
20,319
NIA
3,971"
19,228
28,347
4,585
1,109
1,532
1,446
25,049
1,061
383
10
70
10,000
2,435
2,015
1,061
45
NIA
2,100
49,000
3.294
329
NIA
116
5,158
1,866
264
55,512
67,960
NIA
920,325
THESE TOTALS ARE INCOMPLETE AND REPRESENT A SUMMARY OF FURNISHED DATA ONLY. NIA= Not Available or Not Applicable 0 =Zero - = No Response to This Item * 1993-94 data; no data provided for 1994-95 ** 1992-93 data; no data provided for 1994-95 # County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk
+ County Assessor/Recorder
Page 11
6,152
3
371
457,541
A Report on Budgets, Workloads, and Assessment Appeal Activities 1994-95 TABLEG BUSINESS PROPERTY WORKLOAD DATA (Including Agricultural Businesses)
Number
General Certificated
of
Aircraft
Boats Aircraft
(2)
(3)
(1)
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Fresno+
Glenn*
Humboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kern+
Kings
Lake*+
Lassen
Los Angeles
Madera
Marin
Mariposa+
Mendocino
Merced
Modoc
Mono
Monterey#
Napa
Nevada
Orange
Placer
Plumas
Riverside
Sacramento
San Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego#
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo#
Santa Barbara #
Santa Oara
Santa Cruz
Shasta+
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano+
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity**#
Tulare#
Tuolumne+
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba
Totals
14,901
10
1,049
2,720
1,387
743
26,295
512
4,008
6,661
440
2,553
1,483
453
3,474
1,916
6,761
409
52,514
1,141
800
453
2,026
1,850
293
213
6,126
1,646
2,511
37,180
5,761
1,408
3,354
18,170
554
20,019
19,448
2,073
10,298
8,030
11,065
6,133
12,475
2,707
7,308
144
711
4,617
7,000
5,338
2,188
1,372
1,206
8,022
1,790
16,778
1,326
877
0
83
257
40
130
596
38
358
646
136
201
194
73
1,018
126
130
35
3,871
133
69
51
187
247
38
30
374
319
265
970
435
58
l,167
667
175
1,730
2,049
0
388
417
403
520
1,172
256
294
5
108
201
820
288
164
90
2,181
10'1
364,004
24,790
18
0
0
1
NIA
0
0
1
0
10
3
1
0
0
0
518
0
0
0
30
0
11,428
0
2
0
0
0
6,026
172
18
NIA
200
0
414
267
6,500
0
253
0
102,942
0
1,305
710
2,100
0
500
In#2
0
19
0
0
15
18
0
0
23
0
0
7
40
8
17
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
64
482
211
876
154
Direct
Billing
(4)
0
0
4
12
N/A
748
1,836
Number
Property
Annual
of
Racehorse· Statements
Field
Appraisals Tax Returns (Except 1-6) Others
(8)
(7)
(6)
(5)
6,016
15
90
823
0
71
0
243
1,299
2,706
134
0
0
0
1
0
194
0
2
207
800
350
174
1,661
NIA
0
275
12,000
700
0
261
800
1,950
72
100
3,161
734
52
3
NIA
0
23
NIA
4,000
1,115
552
3,712
6,883
252
12,446
12,037
25,391
5,229
3,648
8,770
0
0
3,442
208
37
1,498
0
450
1,058
0
224
38
In#l
0
3,509
791
NIA
225,963
978
5,482
1,641
200
0
12,531
5,443
5
1,624
0
3,600
12,119
1,130
1,600
54
250
500
1,300
2,941
104
50
In #3
In #7
0
NIA
1,070
200
91,175
3
4,500
40
15
0
7
1
NIA
15
17
9
0
0
264
3
522
355
0
237
144
18
260
12
5
2
0
2
0
25
32
3
1
18
0
15
5
N/A
7,094
TOTAL
Vessel
Business
Property
Property
Assessments Statements
(9)
(10)
816
661
314
83
0
0
64
327
57,473
125
2,938
11,155
2,479
3,218
52,443
1,993
9,007
28,719
3,000
8,122
5,827
2,906
28,486
4,396
9,174
1,929
339,249
7,914
4,714
1,827
10,229
i4,135
1,166
1,520
19,150
7,508
8,780
123,026
11,673
3,563
35,014
64,814
3,242
54,913
139,329
47,797
28,492
22,135
33,733
22,578
89,135
12,449
16,154
727
4,384
11,636
23,595
19,279
7,470
4,241
2,327
27,144
3,532
39,974
7,284
2,485
2,328
7,298
744,417
58,329
1,516,520
23,380
100
1,534
7,354
885
2,274
19,332
1,027
2,956
18,489
2,224
4,562
3,206
1,938
9,358
2,354
1,842
1,207
139,359
5,900
2,525
997
6,400
NIA
In #8
677
9,483
4,809
4,101
80,840
3,375
1,545
21,284
26,030
2,058
20,196
92,886
14,890
11,817
8,265
13,234
11,749
63,340
4,909
5,859
487
1,815
6,318
14,000
8,806
4,350
2,190
936
18,622
1,531
18,728
3,599
719
0
180
0
166
0
0
0
366
0
0
180
0
6,452
188
NIA
23,545
0
0
65
106
7,951
762
6
0
0
0
11,141
NIA
0
0
518
0
203
308
0
0
880
0
0
0
THESE TOTALS ARE INCOMPLETE AND REPRESENT A SUMMARY OF FURNISHED DATA ONLY. NIA= Not Avai1able or Not Applicable 0 =Zero - =No Response to This Item * 1993-94 data; no data provided for 1994-95 ** 1992-93 data; no data provided for 1994-95 # County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk + County Assessor/Recorder
Page 12 1,533
0
1
0
0
130
4
25
247
NIA
0
0
0
0
4,572
3
250
ln#23
0
0
0
NIA
NIA
9
3,136
13
0
62
796
0
0
4,657
208
NIA
251
NIA
376
13
0
0
0
212
NIA
0
4
0
NIA
0
154
0
N/A
16,656
A Report on Budgets, Workloads, and Assessment Appeal Activities 1994-95
TABLE G (CONTINUED)
BUSINESS PROPERTY WORKLOAD DATA
Total
Audits
(4 yrs)
(11)
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Fresno+
Glenn*
Hwnboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kern
Kings
Lake*+
Lassen
Los Angeles
Madera
Marin
Mariposa+
Mendocino
Merced
Modoc
Mono
Monterey#
Napa
Nevada
Orange
Placer
Plwnas
Riverside
Sacramento
San Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego#
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo#
Santa Barbara#
Santa Oara
Santa Cruz
Shasta+
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano+
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity*#
Tulare#
Tuolumne+
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba
Totals
Audits
Due
(12)
Audits
Assigned
(13)
Mandatory Audits
Potential
Audits
Current
Year
Completed
Audits
1994-95
Audits
Carried
Over
(14)
(15)
689
0
47
54
0
76
221
10
1
0
3
1
57
7
4,068
58
0
10
26
66
5
8
119
29
24
1,150
73
0
173
273
35
200
750
428
216
81
218
103
620
32
77
11
23
75
178
157
57
20
0
227
0
0
1
1
0
0
170
13
109
75
53
16,364
118
0
25
0
0
0
4
0
15
347
166
1
5
15
12
0
5
4
25
10
182
215
32
644
124
37
20
17,147
140
260
13
146
247
12
10
422
171
175
5,516
252
0
1,317
1,238
77
NIA
3,195
2,018
891
345
363
757
923
336
425
0
55
324
51
55
8
159
35
11
0
4,000
126
65
11
30
71
7
8
136
29
24
1,161
64
17
256
310
16
501
670
452
180
86
264
141
923
79
57
4
23
80
132
156
39
11
0
0
0
1
98
1
0
0
50
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
20
219
89
145
2
202
75
15
0
0
0
98
32
57
16
20
0
258
34
259
91
182
40
8
5
45,695
12,168
886
3,310
603
150
45
2
600
58
811
357
0
1
0
91
5
24
1
(19)
94
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
10
10
499
0
16
29
4
34
288
14
38
334
8
0
0
0
12
0
0
19
12
40
10
6
40
0
I
9
0
0
20
8
0
0
0
11
0
8·
(18)
595
0
10
22
2
20
293
7
28
681
1,935
1
35
8
5
99
1,226
32
124
1,393
20
330
2
165
0
5
0
0
3
42
48
0
154
0
0
478
46
12
625
70
132
54
0
70
54
4
89
(17)
(16)
783
1
46
44
16
34
297
18
78
691
0
57
55
28
379
222
12
20
4,330
178
230
IO'IAL
Audits
AUDITS
Carried
COMPLETED Over to
1994-95 &WAIVED 1995-96
Audits
Waived
11
35
71
7
11
186
77
24
1,315
76
17
734
375
40
1,166
750
590
274
86
335
204
927
168
77
12
24
80
223
172
63
10
22
2
20
297
7
38
691
11
25
0
63
16
173
375
40
1,106
750
490
271
86
335
143
882
32
77
12
23
80
208
163
61
20
0
195
13
172
91
40
0
0
0
0
28
300
0
12
13
35
120
230
0
8
5
2
3
29
18
0
0
0
17
561
0
0
60
0
100
3
0
0
61
45
136
0
0
I
0
15
9
2
0
0
63
21
87
0
47
3
50
3
11,840
2,305
14,145
2,219
0
55
0
79
222
0
3.8
30
0
165
3
0
0
102
5
906
0
62
55
5
117
40
262
0
1
0
5
30
6
4
0
7
4,295.
58
0
11
27
66
5
8
157
59
24
1,315
76
0
THESE TOTALS ARE INCOMPLETE AND REPRESENT A SUMMARY OF FURNISHED DATA ONLY. NIA= Not Available or Not Applicable 0 =Zero - = No Response to This Item * 1993-94 data; no data provided for 1994-95 ** 1992-93 data; no data provided for 1994-95 # County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk
+ County Assessor/Recorder
Page 13
94
1
36
22
14
14
0
SECTION IV. ASSESSMENT
. APPEALS
STATISTICS
A Report on Budgets, Workloads, and Assessment Appeal Activities 1994-95
TABLEH
DISTRIBUTION OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS BY PROPERTY TYPES
(1994-95 Fiscal Year)
Number of
Residential
Appeals
Filed
(1)
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Fresno+
Glellll *
Humboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kem+
Kings
Lake*+
Lassen
Los Angeles
Madera
Marin
Mariposa+
Mendocino
Merced
Modoc
Mono
Monterey#
Napa
Nevada
Orange
Placer
Plumas
Riverside
Sacramento
San Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego#
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo#
Santa Barbara #
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
Shasta+
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano+
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity**#
Tulare#
Tuolumne+
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba
Totals
Number of
Commercial
Appeals
Filed
(2)
9,111
0
52
84
4
3
3,949
3
157
319
76
136
6
244
8
43
1
24,189
576
388
10
43
109
0
69
253
40
138
26,241
742
11
5,347
4,215
2
NIA
20,931
2,259
225
102
1,416 l
287
1,181
17
54
1
2
461
1,328
0
5
50
6
11
613
14
19
381
13
47
38
11
382
38
14
4
17,603
14
133
6
4
In #1
1
0
163
18
64
5,429
447
5
4,869
934
13
NIA
2,361
840
268
115
596
179 .
1,537
145
107
0
11
277
Number of
Industrial
Appeals
Filed
(3)
1,101
0
4
8
0
0
3,7%
0
3
In#2
9
52
3
In#2
0
0
0
In #2
23
11
0
2
In#l
0
0
32
8
0
2,514
0
0
0
430
8
Number of
Rural
Appeals
Filed
(4)
Number of
Business
Property
Appeals
Filed
(5)
92
0
5
17
28
0
68
0
9
75
3
7
69
0
46
16
0
0
7,706
9
3
0
0
In#l
0
0
61
9
0
469
0
0
10,304
54
14
466
0
3
14
1
0
191
0
34
176
22
Number of
Other
Appeals
Filed
(6)
778
0
8
0
22
36
0
8
48
29
45
5
0
31
0
5
2
NIA
16
120
0
31
In#l
0
3
63
7
32
1,086
11
0
376
393
1
0
79
45
2
0
.18,695
0
3
4
10
In #1
0
0
165
5
4
5,871
9
0
1,085
1,438
0
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
1,067
82
81
18
In#2
37
In#2
4
14
44
2
25
16
1,609
NIA
4
15
0
13
3
690
188
74
16
241
55
350
14
18
0
0
44
38
19
38
25
124
0
37
152
387
0
0
0
1
80
Total
Number of
Appeals
Filed
(7)
12,876
0
69
181
39
36
8,653
17
230
999
45
206
300
20
782
107
Number of
Appeals
Filed
1993-94
(8)
15,343
54
262
13
57
3,937
20
332
77.9
45
155
237
17
1,552
145
64
64
7
68,193
638
658
20
90
109
1
72
737
87
238
41,610
1,209
16
21,981
7,464
38
9,868
26,674
3,369
810
270
2,328
735
3,455
184
208
45
29
890
1,450
675
211
10
260
34
1
203
26
6
57
3
0
45
115
3
71
32
0
39
1
0
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
3
5,316
200
7
26
780
105
23
0
557
10
5
0
243
6
4
2
222
53
4
0
1,890
14
3
445
31
9,008
388
46
109,326
40,282
10,010
19,651
5,163
32,726
228,921
(9~
-19.2%
21.7%
-44.8%
66.7%
-58.3%
54.5%
-17.6%
-44.3%
22.0%"
0.0%
24.8%
21.0%
15.0%
-98.5%
-35.5%
0.0%
NIA
59,399
90
867
4
78
158
5
55
580
127
246
. 35,666
1,399
9
16,098
4,633
7
12.90/o
85.9%
-31.8%
80.0%
13.3%
-45.0%
-400.0%
23.6%
21.3%
-46.0%
-3.4%
14.3%
-15.7%
43.8%
26.8%
37.90/o
81.6%
20,671
6,534
782
327
4,175
633
4,991
136
141
0
31
861
1,998
22.5%
-93.9%
3.5%
-21.1%
-79.3%
13.9%
-44.5%
26.1%
32.2%
100.0%
-6.9%
3.3%
-37.8%
121
17
42.7%
-70.0%
510
409
4,625
169
32
-14.6%
-1219.4%
48.7%
56.4%
30.4%
189,596
THESE TOTALS ARE INCOMPLETE AND REPRESENT A SUMMARY OF FURNISHED DATA ONLY. NIA= Not Available or Not Applicable 0 =Zero - = No Response to This Item * 1993-94 data; no data provided for 1994-95 ** 1992-93 data~ no data provided for 1994-95
# County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk
+ County Assessor/Recorder
Page 14
Percentage
Change
From
1993-94
to '94-95
17.2%
A Report on Budgets, Workloads, and Assessment Appeal Activities 1994-95 TABLE I DISTRIBUTION OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS BY PROPERTY TYPES (OUTSTANDING APPEALS CARRIED OVER FROM PREVIOUS FISCAL YEARS) Nurnberof
Residential
Appeals
Outstanding
Number of
Commercial
Appeals
Outstanding
(2)
(1)
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Fresno+
Glenn*
Humboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kem+
Kings
Lake*+
Lassen
Los Angeles
Madera
Marin
Mariposa+
Mendocino
Merced
Modoc
Mono
Monterey#
Napa
Nevada
Orange
Placer
Plumas
Riverside
Sacramento
San Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego#
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo#
Santa Barbara #
Santa Gara
Santa Cruz
Shasta+
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano+
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity**#
Tulare#
Tuolumne+
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba
Totals
3,103
1
Number of
Industrial
Appeals
Outstanding
(3)
1,310
0
Number of
Business
Property
Appeals
Outstanding
(5)
Number of
Rural
Appeals
Outstanding
(4)
961
0
3
Total
Number of
Appeals
Outstanding
(7)
Number of
Other
Appeals
Outstanding
(6)
91
0
524
0
107
0
6,096
1
0
0
2
7
0
140
0
33
4
2,749
0
1,991
4
396
0
151
0
38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
69
71
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
6
0
1
2
46
45
20
58,734
105
724
6
21
18
2
0
30
23
46
39,964
305
0
0
0
29
2
39
14
18
NIA
NIA
32
329
3
6
18
0
25
146
0
0
In #1
0
20
11
0
0
In #1
0
13
1
0
14
ln#l
1
15
139
0
1
In #1
0
0
98
3
0
In #1
1
12
7
12
20,642
192
4
6
31
4,253
107
2
2
0
2,063
0
5
4
0
689
0
7
2
0
7
5
0
2
3
12,310
1
2,876
1,572
0
4,138
279
5
0
169
0
8,894
20
2
192
112
1,112
642.
0
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
1,304
664
33
62
749
58
13
1
8
0
8
27
411
148
36
12
1,419
0
35
0
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
52
37
1
18
6
16
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
NIA
3,018
2,410
7
74
O·
NIA
17,212
2,794
7
8,500
6,909
3,280
132
176
NIA
130
3,902
0
30
0
5
873
2
6
23
56
0
NIA
88
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
1
1,051
0
0
10
540
0
1
0
380
0
0
0
173
0
0
2
65
3
0
76
0
0
69
13
2,285
3
1
37,444
13,441
4,593
10,029
1,913
15,933
155,431
0
THESE TOTALS ARE INCOMPLETE AND REPRESENT A SUMMARY OF FURNISHED DATA ONLY. NIA= Not Available or Not Applicable 0 =Zero - =No Response to This Item * 1993-94 data; no data provided for 1994-95 ** 1992-93 data; no data provided for 1994-95 # County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk + County Assessor/Recorder
Page 15
A Report on Budgets, Workloads, and Assessment Appeal Activities 1994-95
TABLEJ
ASSESSMENT APPEALS ACTIVITY FOR THE 1994-95 FISCAL YEAR
Total
Number of
Appeals
Withdrawn
Filed
(1)
(2)
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Fresno+
Glenn*
Humboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kem+
Kings
Lake*+
Lassen
Los Angeles
Madera
Marin
Mariposa+
Mendocino
Merced
Modoc
Mono
Monterey#
Napa
Nevada
Orange
Placer
Plumas
Riverside
Sacramento
San Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego#
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo#
Santa Barbara #
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
Shasta+
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano+
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity**#
Tulare#
Tuolumne+
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba
Total~
12,876
0
69
181
39
36
8,653
17
230
999
45
206
300
20
782
107
64
7
68,193
638
658
20
90
1D9
1
72
737
87
238
41,610
1,209
16
21,981
7,464
38
9,868
26,674
3,369
810
270
2,328
735
3,455
184
208
45
29
890
1,450
675
211
10
1,012
0
2
29
4
5
1,940
4
53
413
No
Show
(3)
Invalid
(4)
0
I
14
1
0
463
0
0
0
67
0
0
In#3
0
0
5
0
l
0
10
7
109
0
12
4
0
NIA
NIA
10
8
1
0
55,239
45
59
5
15
25
0
25
264
14
29
6,773
362
6
1,112
180
1
NIA
2,435
55
238
125
645
118
934
68
34
0
8
123
10
5
0
51
1
0
0
In#2
0
0
0
'2
0
0
0
32
0
3
1,573
4
0
1,372
1
0
0
1
0
In#2
1
0
0
3
0
1
0
26
4
0
3,427
7
0
Resolved
by
Stipulations
(5)
Outstanding
Number of
Appeals
Total
Number of Carried Over Decisions
Appeals
to Next
Appealed
Fiscal Year
to Court
Resolved
(11)
(10)
(9)
Nwnber of Appeals Heard
ASsessment ASsessment ASsessment
Increased
Sustained
Reduced
(8)
(7)
(6)
0
0
14
0
0
1
0
0
0
6
1
0
6
9
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
51
9
0
In#2
18
173
9
51
52
0
39
310
2
0
0
In#2
5
2
4
0
0
In#2
7
2
1
7
15
0
5
7
4
0
0
0
In#2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
76
11
0
55,239
76
236
16
88
92
1
69
662
31
53
7
12,954
562
422
4
2
17
0
3
75
15
93
11,681
539
0
19,213
7,277
23
9,868
9,324
3,032
240
115
437
281
1,670
48
1
10
0
0
0
23
2
3
2,107
13
1
26
1
0
4
72
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
116
2
9
2
8
124
46
11
3
0
10
12
343
0
83
14
0
2
364
8
1
0
0
50
14,177
227
207
3
1,204
198
420
90
126
0
2
309
229
53
7
25
8
12
0
9
0
3
8
50
0
10
4
9
4
9
2
10
1
2
10
0
0
12
0
0
0
147
70
5
3
1
0
3
4
3
0
0
0
145
29,929
670
16
2,768
187
15
0
17,350
337
570
155
1,891
454
1,785
179
183
1
26
512
683
394
160
8
39
0
1
0
384
21
5
106
15,418
264
0
246
0
13
n
628
20
9
7
0
1
NIA
0
0
0
1
0
137
28
0
NIA
445
31
9,008
388
46
208
7
In#7
3
10
0
104
10
22
1
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
138
19
39
l
54
126
5
5
8
0
10
9
228.921
73.069
4.530
4.060
41.871
2.659
999
0
0
5,092
0
2
2
6
4
6,204
0
7
220
0
106
38
3
0
6
14
23
0
26
6
6
0
57
0
104
7,784
0
67
179
33
32
2,449
17
223
779
45
100
262
7
0
8
14
3
0
14
3
12
2
6,702
0
50
94
2
27
0
4
151
364
35
59
139
7
25
44
3
378
767
281
51
2
0
0
0
l
0
0
0
0
0
NIA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
NIA
5
24
0
0
0
NIA
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
61
10
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
3
0
378
39
10
7
0
35
127,855
91,276
35
THESE TOTALS ARE INCOMPLETE AND REPRESENT A SUMMARY OF FURNISHED DATA ONLY. NIA= Not Available or Not Applicable 0 =Zero - = No Response to This Item * 1993-94 data; no data provided for 1994-95 ** 1992-93 data; no data provided for 1994-95
# County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk.
+ County Assessor/Recorder
Page 16
5
0
0
0
A Report on Budgets, Workloads, and Assessment Appeal Activities 1994-95
TABLEK ASSESSMENT APPEALS ACTIVITY - OUTSTANDING APPEALS (PREVIOUS FISCAL YEARS)
Total
Number of
No
Appeals
Outstanding Withdrawn Shows
(2)
(3)
(1)
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Fresno+
Glenn*
Humboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kern+
Kings
Lake*+
Lassen
Los Angeles
Madera
Marin
Mariposa+
Mendocino
Merced
Modoc
Mono
Monterey#
Napa
Nevada
Orange
Placer
Plumas
Riverside
Sacramento
San Benita
San Bemardino
San Diego#
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo#
Santa Barbara #
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
Shasta+
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano+
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity**#
Tulare#
Tuolumne+
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba
Totals
Number of Apf!eals Heard
ABsessment ABsessment ASsessment
Increased
Sustained
Reduced
(8)
(7)
(6)
Resolved
by
Stipulations
(5)
Invalid
(4)
0
0
5,176
0
920
1
0
0
5
2
0
0
8
0
0
0
1,256
4
1,493
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0
·O
0
0
6,096
1
1,990
0
513
0
160
0
2,239
0
199
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
4
2,749
0
1,133
0
76
0
10
0
15
0
14
0
0
0
0
71
3
0
0
4
0
0
46
45
20
58,734
105
724
6
21
18
2
Outstanding
Number of
Appeals
Total
Number of Carried Over Decisions
Appeals to
to Next
Appeals
Court
Fiscal Year
Resolved
(11)
(10)
(9)
75
0
0
68
0
3
0
14
4
58,734
68
221
3
0
18
0
0
0
0
27
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
9
275
2
·16
0
31
0
0
0
18
1
1
0
0
0
0
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
31
16
0
37
- 503
3
21
0
2
30
23
46
39,964
305
12
6
15
3,269
146
3
1
2
967
1
1
0
0
21
4
5
8
25
5,611
111
1
2
0
927
14
0
4
2
506
27
0
0
0
8
0
22
21
44
11,309
303
8
2
2
28,655
2
0
1
0
20
0
17,212
2,794
7
8,500
6,909
3,280
132
176
3,788
2,093
0
368
92
0
22
39
0
7,521
63
3
520
64
0
276
27
1
0
1
0
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
662
760
2
18
502
0
1
5
2,565
226
33
0
60
1,074
10
15
62
169
7
8
0
0
1
0
4,717
415
3
5,500
435
491
51
21
0
0
0
2,623
560
27
109
12,495
2,379
·4
3,000
6,474
2,789
81
155
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
130
3,902
0
30
0
130
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
873
0
0
51
37
0
0
69
11
111
3
1
102,237
1
16
0
0
NIA
28
177
0
2
0
0
4
873
88
14
24
0
11
69
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,285
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2,174
0
0
155,431
16,013
3,497
766
18,773
2,936
1,204
10
49,246
· 13
0
0
TIIESE TOTALS ARE INCOMPLETE AND REPRESENT A SUMMARY OF FURNISHED DATA ONLY. NIA= Not Available or Not Applicable 0 =Zero - = No Response to This Item * 1993-94 data; no data provided for 1994-95 ** 1992-93 data; no data provided for 1994-95
# County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk
+ County Assessor/Recorder
Page 17
0
0
0
0
0
0
NIA
8
94
4
0
0
0
0
0
131
A Report on Budgets, Workloads, and Assessment Appeal Activities 1994-95
TABLEL
NUMBER OF APPEALS BOARDS
AND HEARING OFFICERS
Assessment
Appeals.
Boards
(2)
County
Board of
Equalization
(1)
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Fresno+
Glenn*
Humboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kem+
Kings
Lake*+
Lassen
Los Angeles
Madera
Marin
Mariposa+
Mendocino
Merced
Modoc
Mono
Monterey#
Napa
Nevada
Orange
Placer
Plumas
Riverside
Sacramento
San Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego#
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo#
Santa Barbara #
Santa Oara
Santa Cruz
Shasta+
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano+
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity**#
Tulare#
Tuolumne+
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba
0
1
1
0
I
1
0
1
1
0
I
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
I
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
I
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
0
2
2
0
3
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
l
0
2
1
1
55
21
Totals
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
5
0
2
1
0
1
Hearing
Officers
(3)
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
2
0
3
0
9
0
0
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
5
0
1
0
0
53
THESE TOTALS ARE INCOMPLETE AND REPRESENT A SUMMARY OF FURNISHED DATA ONLY. NIA= Not Available or Not Applicable 0 =Zero - =No Response to This Item *
1993-94 data~ no data provided for 1994-95 ** 1992-93 data; no data provided for 1994-95 + County Assessor/Recorder
# County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk Page 18
I
!
.
SECTION V.
DATA ANALYSES A Report on Budgets, Workloads, and Assessment Appeal Activities 1994-95
TABLEM
DEMOGRAPHIC COMPARISON
Alphabetical Order
PopUlabon
Gross
total
1/1/95
Budget
Roll Units
(1)
(2)
(3)
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Fresno+
Glenn
Hwnboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kem+
Kings
Lake+
Lassen
Los Angeles
Madera
Marin
Mariposa+
Mendocino
Merced
Modoc
Mono
Monterey#
Napa
Nevada
Orange
Placer
Plumas
Riverside
Sacramento
San Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego#
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo#
Santa Barbara#
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
Shasta+
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano+
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity#
Tulare#
Tuolwnne+
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba
1,362,900
1,230
33,850
204,300
38,700
18,000
883,400
29,250
148,600
764,800
27,100
128,900
141,500
18,900
627,700
116,300
57,500
29,800
9,244,600
109,500
245,500
16,550
86,200
202,800
10,700
11,250
371,000
120,600
89,500
2,641,400
210,000
21,500
1,393,500
1,149,200
43,050
·1,618,200
2,720,900
759,300
530,700
236,000
695,100
396,900
1,607,700
242,600
166,100
3,460
46,500
377,600
432,200
420,000
74,900
55,700
13,950
355,200
53,300
720,500
153,700
64,100
$9,816,934
104,406
456,409
1,839,598
815,315
500,301
7,919,755
401,322
2,271,928
6,241,946
Totals
32,344,190 $276,663,867 11,835,517
1,420,746
1,077,748
761,859
6,358,902
1,079,338
355,509
85,648,000
921,448
3,799,609
538,374
971,118
1,813,562
286,612
452,500
2,919,149
1,006,383
1,556,493
17,405,039
3,251,473
434,821
10,139,318
9,598,486
490,615
8,120,605
14,170,540
5,893,468
4,152,408
3,058,315
11,476,367
3,840,285
15,493,541
1,885,767
1,934,728
274,528
920,749
2,409,848
4,407,468
3,103,944
891,029
589,266
2,812,864
674,003
6,140,200
1,146,428
612,500
Numerical Order
Total Roll Units
(6)
Population 1/1/95
(4)
443,412 Los Angeles
2,005 San Diego#
24,118 Orange
93,046 San Bernardino
43,759 Santa Clara
13,852 Riverside
358,927 Alameda
17,015 Sacramento
109,655 Contra Costa
Fresno+
262,121
17,013 San Francisco
Ventura
73,881
San Mateo#
89,235
19,382 Kem+
385,338 San Joaquin
43,283
Sonoma
71,094 Stanislaus
24,699 · Santa Barbara #
2,579,614 Solano+
52,105 Monterey#
97,521 Tulare#
14,226 Marin
Santa Cruz
67,395
San Luis Obispo
69,392
28,260 Placer
16,223 Butte
127,178 Merced
51,398 Shasta+
62,412 Yolo
El Dorado
870,701
117,462 Imperial
25,557 Humboldt
Napa
642,743
446,320 Kings
18,070 Madera
749,916 Nevada
899,332 Mendocino
Sutter
226,161
178,772 Yuba
148,287 Lake+
245,388 Tehama
143,442 Tuolumne+
516,077 Siskiyou
101,865 San Benito
101,966 Calaveras
5,417 Amador
48,105 Lassen
134,774 Del Norte·
183,384 Glenn
Plumas
148,231
35,428 Inyo
Colusa
37,141
Mariposa+
15,773
142,937 Trinity#
41,312 Mono
270,968 Modoc
Sierra
54,845
27,584 Alpine
Totals
9,244,600 Los Angeles
2, 720,900 San Diego #
2,641,400 Orange
1,618,200 San Bernardino
1,607,700 Riverside
1,393,500 Santa Clara
1,362,900 Sacramento
1,149,200 Alameda
883,400 Kem+
764,800 Contra Costa
759,300 Ventura
720,500 Fresno +
695,100 SanMateo#
627,700 San Francisco
530,700 Sonoma
432,200 San Joaquin
420,000 San Luis Obispo
396,900 Stanislaus
377,600 Santa Barbara#
371,000 Tulare#
355,200 Solano+
245,500 Monterey#
242,600 Placer
236,000 El Dorado
210,000 Shasta+
204,300 Santa Cnu;
202,800 Marin
166,100 Butte
153,700 Imperial
148,600 Humboldt
141,500 Lake •+
128,900 Merced
120,600 Mendocino
116,300 Nevada
109,500 Yolo
89,500 Madera
86,200 Napa
74,900 Siskiyou
64,100 Calaveras
57,500 Kings
55,700 Tuolumne+
53,300 Tehama
46,500 Sutter
43,050 Modoc
38,700 Yuba
33,850 Plumas
29,800 Lassen
29,250 Amador
27,100 Inyo
21,500 San Benito
18,900 Del Norte
18,000 Glenn'*
16,550 Mono
13,950 Trinity'*'*#
11,250 Mariposa+
10,700 Colusa
3,460 Sierra
1,230 AIJ!lne
2,579,614 Los Angeles
899,332 Orange
870,701 Santa Clara
749,916 San Diego#
642,743 San Mateo#
516,077 Riverside
446,320 Alameda
443,412 Sacramento
385,338 San Bernardino
358,927 Contra Costa
270,968 Kem+
262,121 Fresno+
245,388 Ventura
226,161 San Francisco
183,384 Sonoma
178,772 San Joaquin
148,287 Santa Barbara #
148,231 Marin
143,442 Placer
142,937 Stanislaus
134,774 San Luis Obispo
127,178 Monterey#
117,462 Tulare#
109,655 Solano+
101,966 El Dorado
101,865 Shasta+
97,521 Santa Cruz
93,046 Butte
89,235 Merced
73,881 Nevada
71,094 Humboldt
69,392 Yolo
67,395 Kings
62,412 Imperial
54,845 Napa
52, 105 Mendocino
51,398 Madera
48,105 Siskiyou
43, 759 Sutter
43,283 Lake '*+
41,312 Calaveras
37,141 Inyo
35,428 Tuolwnne +
28,260 Yuba
27,584 Tehama
25,557 Mariposa+
24,699 Colusa
24,118 San Benito
19,382 Amador
18,070 Mono
17,015 Plumas
17,013 Glenn *
16,223 DelNorte
15,773 Trinity '* '*#
14,226 Lassen
13,984 Modoc
5,417 Sierra
2,005 Alpine
$85,648,000
17,405,039
15,493,541
14,170,540
11,476,367
10,139,318
9,816,934
9,598,486
8,120,605
7,919,755
6,358,902
6,241,946
6,140,200
5,893,468
4,407,468
4,152,408
3,840,285
3,799,609
3,251,473
3,103,944
3,058,315
2,919,149
2,812,864
2,409,848
2,271,928
1,934,728
1,885,767
1,839,598
1,813,562
1,556,493
1,420,746
1,146,428
1,079,338
1,077,748
1,006,383
971,118
921,448
920,749
891,029
883,523
815,315
761,859
674,003
612,500
589,266
538,374
500,301
490,615
456,409
452,500
434,821
431,901
401,322
361,661
355,509
286,612
274,528
104,406
32,344,190 Totals
11,835,649 Totals
$278,340,952
THESE TOTALS ARE INCOMPLETE AND REPRESENT A SUMMARY OF FURNISHED DATA ONLY. NIA - Not Availa.blc or Not Applica.blc
0 - Zero
- - No Response to This Item * 1993-94 data; no data provided for 1994-95 ** 1992-93 data; no data provided for 1994-95
+ County Assessor/Recorder
Gross Budget
(7)
# County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk
Page 19
A Report on Budgets, Workloads, and Assessment Appeal Activities 1994-95 TABLEN WORKLOAD INDICATORS (See pages x and xi for explanation and calculation of units worked) Number of
Real Property
Units Worked
(1)
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Fresno+
Glenn*
Humboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kem+
Kings
Lake*+
Lassen
Los Angeles
Madera
Marin
Mariposa+
Mendocino
Merced
Modoc
Mono
Monterey#
Napa
Nevada
Orange
Placer
Plumas
Riverside
Sacramento
San Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego#
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo#
Santa Barbara #
Santa Oara
Santa Cruz
Shasta+
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano+
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity**#
Tulare#
Tuolwnne+
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba
STATE AVG.
96,430
45
4,563
9,875
6,151
3,007
79,464
4,366
37,700
60,211
1,578
9,188
10,905
2,266
45,867
6,140
3,911
2,980
711,414
6,882
25,459
1,478
1,460
20,655
1,741
4,682
30,805
6,516
13,873
408,996
38,516
4,438
274,949
143,217
5,715
314,161
326,881
46,429
80,329
34,663
61,564
31,134
132,760
20,489
14,186
1,049
11,610
50,525
39,144
56,438
5,882
5,565
1,502
15,912
5,998
117,376
13,816
4,360
3,477,216
Number of
Appraisers
(2)
59
Number of
Number of
Units Worked
Unsecured
Per Appraiser Units Worked
(3)
(4)
58,534
125
2,951
11,191
2,482
3,238
52,927
2,000
9,069
29,576
3,000
8,181
5,886
2,906
28,593
4,617
9,179
1,938
343,317
7,988
4,834
1,837
10,286
14,201
1,171
1,531
19,332
7,544
8,836
125,262
11,757
. 3,563
35,563
65,480
3,278
55,113
140,769
48,413
28,782
22,232
34,192
22,736
40,105
12,495
16,249
738
4,407
11,755
23,773
19,507
7,559
4,261
2,327
2,884
3,547
40,305
7,412
7,349
1,459,083
Number of
Aud.itor­
Appraisers
(5)
Number of
Unsecured
Units Worked
Per Auditor­
Appraiser
(6)
Property
Splits per
Mapping!
Drafting
Personnel
(7)
27
0.5 :;::::::
1
525.l
THESE TOTALS ARE INCOMPLETE AND REPRESENT A SUMMARY OF FURNISHED DATA ONLY. NIA= Not Available or Not Applicable 0 =Zero - =No Response to This Item * 1993-94 data; no data provided for 1994-95 ** 1992-93 data; no data provided for 1994-95 + County Assessor/Recorder
# County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk Page 20
New
Subdivision
Lots per
Mapping/
Drafting
Personnel
(8)
A Report on Budgets, Workloads, and
Ass~ssment Appeal
Activities 1994-95
TABLEO
DISTRIBUTION OF WORKLOAD INDICATORS (See pages x and xi, Table O, for explanation and calculation of units worked) Number of
Real Property
Units Worked
(1)
Orange
San Bernardino
San Diego#
Riverside
Solano+
Ventura
San Joaquin
Sacramento
El Dorado
STATE AVG.
Yolo
Amador
Santa Cruz
Plwnas
Del Norte
Stanislaus
Merced
Los Angeles
Siskiyou
Placer
Tehama
Monterey#
Santa Clara
Sonoma
Alameda
Contra Costa
San Mateo#
Fresno+
San Benito
San Luis Obispo
Imperial
San Francisco
Calaveras
Kem+
Tuolumne+
Santa Barbara #
Inyo
Nevada
Marin
Yuba
Colusa
Sutter
Shasta+
Mono
Napa
Humboldt
Kings
Modoc
Butte
Lassen
Tulare# Sierra Trinity**# Madera Lake*+ Mariposa+ Glenn* Mendocino Alpine 408,996
314,161
326,881
274,949
50,525
117,376
80,329
143,217
37,700
3,477,216
13,816
4,563
20,489
4,438
4,366
56,438
20,655
711,414
11,610
38,516
5,565
30,805
132,760
39,144
96,430
79,464
61,564
60,211
5,715
34,663
10,905
46,429
6,151
45,867
5,998
31,134
2,266
13,873
25,459
4,360
3,007
5,882
14,186
4,682
6,516
9,188
6,140
1,741
9,875
2,980
15,912
1,049
1,502
6,882
3,911
1,478
1,578
1,460
45
Number of
Appraisers
(2)
Number of
Unsecured
Units Worked
(4)
Number of
Units Worked
Per Appraiser
(3)
Butte
Nevada
San Bernardino
Santa Cruz
Glenn*
Mendochto
San Luis Obispo
San Diego#
Lake*+
El Dorado
Contra Costa
Siskiyou
Tehama
San Joaquin
Shasta+
Madera
Riverside
Lassen
Santa Barbara#
Yuba
Ventura
Plumas
Merced
Tuolunme+
Sonoma
San Benito
Sacramento
Stanislaus Colusa San Mateo# Amador Placer Inyo STATE AVG. Monterey# Humboldt Los Angeles Sutter Calaveras Napa Yolo San Francisco Solano:+­
Trinity**# Orange Kem+ Alameda Fresno+ Del Norte Imperial Mariposa+ Kings Mono Sierra Marin Modoc Santa Clara Tulare# Alpine Number of
Auditor­
Appraisers
(5)
Number of
Unsecured
Units Worked
Per Auditor­
Appraiser
(6)
11,191
8,836
55,113
12,495
3,000
10,286
22,232
140,769
9,179
9,069
52,927
4,407
4,261
28,782
16,249
7,988
35,563
1,938
22,736
7,349
40,305
3,563
14,201
3,547
23,773
3,278
65,480
19,507
3,238
34,192
2,951
11,757
2,906
1,459,083
19,332
8,181
343,317
7,559
2,482
7,544
7,412
48,413
11,755
2,327
125,262
28,593
58,534
29,576
2,000
5,886
1,837
4,617
1,531
738
4,834
1,171
40,105
2,884
125
THESE TOTALS ARE INCOMPLETE AND REPRESENT A COMPARISON OF FURNISHED DATA O NLY. NIA= Not Available or Not Applicable 0 =Zero - =No Response to This Item * 1993-94 data; no data provided for 1994-95 ** 1992-93 data; no data pi;ovided for 1994-95 + County Assessor/Recorder # County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk Page 21
A Report on Budgets, Workloads, and Assessment Appeal Activities 1994-95
TABLEP
TOTAL BUDGET, ROLL UNITS AND ROLL VALUE COMPARISON
(Comparison based primarily on nwnber of total roll units)
Total
Staff
(1)
1994-95
Gross
Budget
(2)
Budget
Per Staff
Member
(3)
Total
Roll
Units
(4)
Roll
Units
Per Staff
(5)
$147,692,121
$177,063,375
$75,242,003
$74,620,474
$114,947,879
$53,460,527
$50,790.5
$57,065.7
$53,075.8
$61,450.4
$59,050.0
$63,777.3
$53,460.4
San Diego#
Orange
San Bernardino
Riverside
Santa Clara
Sacramento
Alameda
Sonoma
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
Stanislaus
Santa Barbara #
Tulare#
Solano+
Monterey#
Placer
El Dorado
Santa Cruz
Marin
69
80.2
67
56.5
71.8
53
44.25
49
65
46
31.8
53.5
4,407,468
4,152,408
3,058,315
3,103,944
3,840,285
2,812,864
2,409,848
2,919,149
3,251,473
2,271,928
1,885,767
Siskiyou
Calaveras
Kings
Tuolumne+
Tehama
Sutter
Modoc
Yuba
Plumas
Lassen
Amador
21.38
15.5
20
14
15
21
8
15.5
8
8
920,749
815,315
1,079,338
674,003
589,266
891,029
286,612
612,500
434,821
355,509
$63,876.3
$51,775.7
$45,646.5
$54,937.1
$53,485.9
$53,072.9
$54,459.8
$59,574.5
$50,022.7
$49,389.7
$59,300.8
Total
Roll
Value
in OOOs
(6)
183,384
178,772
148,287
148,23l
143,442
142,937
134,774
127,178
117,462
109,655
101,865
2,658
2,229
2,213
2,624
1,998
2,697
3,046
2,595
1,807
2,384
3,203
$27,757,521
$23,131,356
$17,922,809
$17, 798,224
$24,855,002
$12,605,344
$18,107,228
$20,309,266
$16,027, 736
$9,777,423
$14,663,648
48,105
43,759
43,283
41,312
37,141
35,428
28,260
27,584
25,557
24,699
2,250
2,823
2,164
2,951
2,476
1,687
3,533
1,780
3,195
3,087
$2,185,503
$2,595,262
$3,848,797
$3,217,223
$2,330,743
$3,702,845
$575,877
$2,165,658
$1,962,111
$1,218,961
Roll
Value
Per Staff
in OOOs
(7)
$529,362
$580,536
$491,778
$452,245
$438,097
$355,219
$102,222
$167,436
$192,440
$229,802
$155,383
$176,326
$71,985
$139,720
$245,264
$152,370
THESE TOTALS ARE INCOMPLETE AND REPRESENT A COMPARISON OF FURNISHED DATA ONLY.
NIA= Not Available or Not Applicable 0 =Zero - =No Response to Titis Item
* 1993-94 data; no data provided for 1994-95 ** 1992-93 data; no data provided for 1994-95
+ County Assessor/Recorder # County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk
Page 22
A Report on Budgets, Workloads, and Assessment Appeal Activities 1994-95
TABLEQ
COMPARISON OF ADMINISTRATIVE POSITIONS
(Comparison based primarily on number oftotal roll units)
Assessor
& Other
Managers
(1)
Other
Staff
(2)
San Diego#
Orange
San Bernardino
Riverside
Santa Clara
Sacramento
Alameda
StatTper
Administrative
Position
(3)
Total
Roll Units
(4)
268
298
147
153
251.38
142.5
173.63
24.4
42.6
24.5
12.8
22.9
17.8
17.4
899,332
870,701
749,916
642,743
516,077
446,320
443,412
18.38
12.5
17
11
12
19
6
12.5
7
6
6.1
4.2
5.7
3.7
4.0
9.5
3.0
4.2
7.0
3.0
48,105
43,759
43,283
41,312
37,141
35,428
28,260
27,584
25,557
24,699
Sonoma
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
Stanislaus
Santa Barbara #
Tulare#
Solano+
Monterey#
Placer
El Dorado
Santa Cruz
Marht
Siskiyou
Calaveras
Kings
Tuolumne+
Tehama
Sutter
Modoc
Yuba
Plumas
Lassen
Amador
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
1
2
2
Page23
Roll Units per
Administrative
Position
(5)
A Report on Budgets, Workloads, and Ass~ssment Appeal Activities 1994-95
TABLER
REAL PROPERTY WORKLOAD COMPARISON
(Comparison based primarily on number of total roll units)
Real
Property
Total
Roll Units Appraisers
(1)
(2)
San Diego#
Orange
San Bernardino
Riverside
Santa Clara
Sacramento
Alameda
69
75
59
63
74
60
160,848
155,435
121,788
125,271
118,071
122,551
122,837
105,988
102,635
101,941
90,230
Sonoma
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
Stanislaus
Santa Barbara #
Tulare#
Solano+
Monterey#
Placer
El Dorado
Santa Cruz
Marin
Siskiyou,
Calaveras
Kings
Tuolumne+
Tehama
Sutter
Modoc
Yuba
Plumas
Lassen
Amador
Secured
Roll
Units
(3)
48,105
43,759
43,283
41,312
37,141
35,428
28,260
27,584
25,557
24,699
6
5
7
5
3
6
2
4
2
3
Transfers
Secured Roll
per
Total
Units per
Appraiser Transfers Appraiser
(6)
(4)
(5)
New
Construction
Construction
per
Assessments
Appraiser
(7)
(8)
11,726
9,799
11,545
9,671
5,769
6,206
99,849
65,235
110,818
63,513
26,039
26,391
1,447
870
1,878
1,008
352
440
7,311
6,217
4,971
4,640
4,373
5,328
8,774
6,235
5,132
6,371
10,026
10,734
21,303
10,260
18,304
4,608
8,234
16,629
7,460
8,370
13,352
6,534
488
852
419
678
171
358
1,188
439
419
835
726
9,500
8,308
407
6,782
2,817
NIA
1,224
2,058
2,960
2,614
1,820
432
332
17
251
104
7,452
8,253
5,417
7,459
11,006
4,862
13,650
5,985
11,070
7,800
6,781
1,643
2,507
1,833
2,840
2,220
1,044
1,296
3,502
1,090
1,130
329
358
367
947
370
522
324
1,751
363
1,225
745
1,627
1,231
1,608
1,555
277
963
204
149
232
246
536
259
139
241
1,087
THESE TOTALS ARE INCOMPLETE AND REPRESENT A COMPARISON OF FURNISHED DATA ONLY. NIA= Not Available or Not Applicable 0 =Zero - =No Response to This Item * 1993-94 data; no data provided for 1994-95 ** 1992-93 data; no data provided for 1994-95 + County Assessor/Recorder
# County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk Page24
A Report on Budgets. Workloads. and Assessment Appeal Activities 1994-95 TABLES BUSINESS PROPERTY WORKLOAD COMPARISON (Comparison based primarily on number of total roll units)
Business
Business
Total
Property
Property
Roll Units Appraisers Assessments
(1)
(3)
(2)
San Diego#
Orange
San Bernardino
Riverside
Santa Oara
Sacramento
Alameda
30
56
8
9
46
20
139,329
123,026
54,913
35,014
39.135
64.814
Sonoma
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
Stanislaus
Santa Barbara#
Tulare#
Solano+
Monterey#
Placer
El Dorado
Santa Cruz
Marin
7
7
4.5
6
6
7
5
7
4
2
2
23,595
28,492
22,135
19,279
22.578
2,714
11,636
19,150
11,673
9,007
12,449
1
0.5
3
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
4,384
2,479
4,396
3,532
4,241
7,470
1,166
7,298
3,563
1,929
Siskiyou
Calaveras
Kings
Tuolumne+
Tehama
Sutter
Modoc
Yuba
Plumas
Lassen
Amador
48,105
43,759
43,283
41,312
37,141
35,428
28,260
27,584
25,557
24,699
Assessments
per Bus. Prop.
Appraiser
(4)
4.644
2,197
6.864
3,890
851
3,241
4,384
4,958
1,465
3,532
4,241
2,490
1,166
3,649
3,563
1,929
Mandatory Mandatory
Property
Property
Statements
Audits per
Audits
Appraiser Statements per Appraiser
Due
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
670
1,161
501
256
923
310
22
21
63
28
20
16
104,923
80,840
32,642
24,996
63,340
32,913
132
180
86
156
141
145
80
136
64
38
79
19
26
19
26
24
21
16
19
16
19
40
14,450
17,046
11,913
9,864
11,749
18,622
6,318
9,483
4,490
2,974
8,351
23
4
35
2
11
39
7
40
17
0
THESE TOTALS ARE INCOMPLETE AND REPRESENT A COMPARISON OF FURNISHED DATA ONLY. NIA= Not Available or Not Applicable 0 =Zero - =No Response to This Item * 1993-94 data; no data provided for 1994-95 ** 1992-93 data; no data provided for 1994-95 + County Assessor/Recorder
# County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk Page25
2,064
2,435
2,647
1,644
1,958
2,660
1,264
1,355
1,123
1,487
4,176
A Report on Budgets, Workloads, and Assessment Appeal Activities 1994-95
TABLET CLERICAL WORKLOAD COMPARISON
(Comparison based primarily on number of total roll units)
San Diego#
Orange
San Bernardino
Riverside
Santa Clara
Sacramento
Alameda
Sonoma
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
Stanislaus
Santa Barbara #
Tulare#
Solano+
Monterey#
Placer
El Dorado
Santa Cruz
Marin
Siskiyou
Calaveras
All
Clerical
Valuation
Staff
Valuation
Staff per
Clerk
Total
Roll Value
in OOO's
Roll Value
per Clerk
(in OOO's)
Total
Roll Units
Roll Units
Per Clerk
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
106.5
136
48
50
112.38
53.5
66.63
99
131
67
72
120
80
86
0.9
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.1
1.5
$1,386,780
$1,301,937
$1,567,542
$1,492,409
$1,022,850
$999,262
899,332
870,701
749,916
642,743
516,077
446,320
8,444
6,402
15,623
12,855
4,592
8,342
28
25.2
24
16.5
18
29
32
29
33
33
30
19
24
24
18
l.0
1.3
1.2
2.0
1.8
3.0
1.9
1.3
1.0
0.9
1.0
$991,340
$917,911
$746,784
$1,078,680
$1,380,833
$1,260,534
$1,766,559
$1,128,293
$696,858
$514,601
$1,357,745
183,384
178,772
148,287
148,231
143,442
142,937
134,774
127,178
117,462
109,655
101,865
6,549
7,094
6,179
8,984
7,969
14,294
13,149
7,065
5,107
5,771
9,432
0.8
1.1
1.7
1.7
0.7
1.0
1.5
1.1
1.0
4.0
$260,800
$519,052
$641,466
$919,207
$388,457
$411,427
$287,939
$393,756
$654,037
$1,218,961
48,105
43,759
43,283
41,312
37,141
35,428
28,260
27,584
25,557
24,699
5,740
8,752
7,214
11,803
6,190
3,936
14,130
5,015
8,519
24,699
IO
10.25
18
23
19
10.8
17
8.38
5
6
3.5
6
9
2
Kings
Tuolumne+
Tehama
Sutter
Modoc
Yuba
Plumas
Lassen
Amador
5.5
3
1
3.5
11
7
5.5
10
6
4
9
3
6
3
4
3
THESE TOTALS ARE INCOMPLETE AND REPRESENT A COMPARISON OF FURNISHED DATA ONLY. NI A = Not Available or Not Applicable 0 = Zero - = No Response to This Item *
1993-94 data; no data provided for 1994-95
** 1992-93 data; no data provided for 1994-95 + County Assessor/Recorder
# County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk '
Page 26
•
. SECTION VI . .APPENDICES A Report of Budgets, Workloads, and Assessment Appeal Activities 1994-95
APPENDIX 1
ITEMIZATION1 OF OTHER INCOME (Table A, Column 10) KERN (CONTINUED)
Historical Aircraft Exemption Fee
Returned Check Charges
ALAMEDA
Property Tax Administration Fees
State Reimbursement-Supplemental
Assessment
SB 90 Claims
LOS ANGELES
Property Tax Administration
ALPINE
Sales of roll and lists of property owners
MARIN
Proposition 90 Fees CONTRA COSTA
Property Tax Administration Fees
Sale of Assessor Use Codes
SB 90
MENDOCINO State Reimbursement SB90 MODOC Fees for maps, copies, computer.print­
outs, mag tapes, etc. ELDORADO
Property Tax Administration Fees
Sales--Roll Tape
Trust Fund
HUMBOLDT
State Aid--Open Space
Federal In Lieu--Public Land
Contract Audit Fees
NEVADA Secured roll microfiche Labels/printouts Secured roll on mag tape Sales Activity Report TPZ/CLCA Reader printer copies Subpoena/Jury Duty Fees Historical Aircraft KERN
Property Tax Administration
State Aid--Tax Administration
Supplemental Roll Assmt. Reimb.
Tract/Parcel Map Estimates
Parcel Cuts/Combinations
Jury and Witness Fees
RIVERSIDE Property Tax Administration Timeshare Fees Budget Reimbursement Witness/Jury Fees Historical Aircraft Exemption Fees Rebates, Refunds & Interest FRESNO
Administration Costs
Admin~ Sys. (SB 813) 5%
1
Only the counties listed provided an itemization of other income.
Page 27
A Report of Budgets, Workloads, and Assessment Appeal Activities 1994-95
APPENDIXl
SAN BENITO
Tax Administration Fees
Supplemental Tax Admin. Fees
Land Conservation Act Admin. Fees
Historical Aircraft Fees
SHASTA
Property Tax Administration
*Fountain Fire FEMA Reimbursement
*State Property Tax Allocation
*PERS Rebate
*Intergovernmental Revenues
SB 813 Supplemental Assessment
Administration Fees
Co-op Audits
* One-time Revenue
SAN BERNARDINO
SB 813 Revenue
Taxes
SOLANO
Supplemental Assessment
Audits Performed for Other Counties
SAN DIEGO
Modernization Fund
Time Share Cuts
Accounting Service Fees
SONOMA
Supplemental Administration Fees
SACRAMENTO
Assessment Fees
Supplemental Fees
Co-op Audits
STANISLAUS
Property Tax Administration Fees
SAN LUIS OBISPO
SB 90 State Reimbursement
Cuts/Combination Fees
Sale of Fixed Assets
Aircraft Filing Fee
Aerial Photo Searches
Penalties and Interest
SUTTER
C-CASE Audit Reimbursement
TULARE
Fees for tax estimates, parcel maps,
subdivision maps, RDA and LAFCO
work
SANTA CLARA
Proposition 90 Fees
Open Space Subvention
VENTURA
Property Tax Administration Fees
Liability Insurance (one-time)
Federal Aid for Disaster (continued)
Income from Trust Fund
SANTACRUZ
Maps
Fees for Appraisal Copies and
Information
Computer Printouts
Roll
Transfer and Situs Tapes
Assessor Data on Disks
YOLO Property Tax Administration Fee State Other State Mandated Costs Auditing Fees Page 28
A Report of Budgets, Workloads, and Assessment Appeal Activities 1994-95
YUBA
Property Tax Administration Fees
Assessors Share AB 1826 (Gotch)
Supplemental Administration Fees
Page 29
APPENDIX 1
APPENDIX2
BUDGET, STAFF, ROLL AND ASSESSMENT APPEAL DATA 1994-95
County:~~~-~~~----~~­
Contact Person:
------~---~
Telephone Number: (
)_ _ _ _ _ __
BUDGET, STAFF, ROLL AND ASSESSMENT APPEAL DATA JULY 1, 1994 - JUNE 30, 1995 We realize that your systems and roll procedures may not directly provide the information to answer all the
questions. If necessary, estimate your answers. Please provide any additional notes you feel will clarify
your response. For multi-function offices, provide data for only the assessor's function.
TABLE A BUDGET DATA & COSTS OF SELECTED PROGRAMS I Salaries and Wages
2 Services from Other County Departments (such as
janitorial, data processin~)
$
$
3~~
$
4 Gross Budget (Sum of Lines 1, 2, and 3)
5
6
7
8
9
1
O
11
Services to Other County Departments
Map Sales
Fees for Property Characteristics
Fees for Appraisal Copies and Information
Fees for On-line Access to Assessor's Information
:;~;~~~~;~~:=d~::::af:sE:~~;::is
r::~ !n::~r1 ~ffsetting Services (Sum of
$
1til:1ll:i:ji:Hl1:I:jl!III:~:E:llli:~:i:l~I:lili1lll~llll1:lllll::Ill:lU
:I:llliI~::II:I::tiliHil:::::I:lH!llltllH!Hlili
]liiiiiI:::::illil:I::i:1H:!iil~liiiii1ililii!Iiitiliitl~I1:i
llllilliilllllllll!1
li!ll-f
county departments
Page 30
l!lll!1ll!ll!Jl!1!llli[j[jl!1ll!1ll!lll!1ll![!l![jjj1![j[j1!i!l!l!l!i!l!1li!lllll!1lll!l!lj![jj[jj[j[[[jjj[!l!l
1
13 Exemption Program Costs (if identifiable)
$
14 Data Processing Costs: Services provided by other $
15 Data Processing Costs: Services implemented
internally
l l l l l l l l l !ltl!l l!l l l!l l!l!l l !1l!l jl l l !l!il l l l !\l ~!:!:[:J:[j :!l :lJl !l liJ!:l!il!:l! !
$
$
$
$
$
$
llllll!llllllllllllllillllillI
$
BUDGET, STAFF, ROLLAND ASSESSMENT APPEAL DATA 1994-95
APPENDIX2
TABLE B BUDGETED STAFF Assessor/Other Managers3
Real Property Appraisers
Business Pro ert Auditor-A raisers
Cad astral
Drafts ersons Ma in
Other Technical/Professional Not
Included Above
ecialists
Clerical
TOTAL
1 Budgeted
and authorized permanent positions only. Temporary positions are separately accounted for in
the last column.
Budgeted and authorized temporary positions (seasonal or emergency employees). Do not include
permanent positions. Please note figures entered should represent full time equivalents (person-years, not
days). This is a change from previous years. (For example, 1500 hours equals one person year.)
2
3
"Managers" includes staff above the level of first-line supervisors. "Supervising appraisers" should be
included in the Real Property Appraisers category; "supervising auditor-appraisers" should be included
with the Business Property Auditor-Appraisers, etc.
Page 31
BUDGET, STAFF, ROLLAND ASSESSMENTAPPEAL DATA 1994-95
APPENDIX2
TABLEC DISTRIBUTION OF LOCAL ROLL 1 Total Number ofRoll Units
2 Total Net (positive and negative) Supplemental
Assessments (Round to nearest dollar)
3
Improved Single Family Residences (include PUDs,
condominiums, and manufactured homes)
4 Improved Multi-Family Residences
5 Vacant Land (zoned residential)
6 TOTAL (Sum of Lines 3 through 5)
7 Improved
;:~:; ;:;· : ~: ;::~~::{~,. :;;:\·:;~::~ti~E::.'._;::_,::>::::·;_,-::::::::'.:tt ';::::·
8 Vacant Land {zoned commercial)
:~!~:~ !~).i:~'.~!(:,~ li~ i/;j'.'.i\i :i !il i!i i:ji:~:~)F:?t: i: ~:.'.:·:,:
9 TOTAL (Sum ofLines 7 and 8)
10 Improved
11
Vacant Land (zoned industrial)
12
TOTAL (Sum ofLines 10 and 11)
13
Irrigated
14 Non-irrigated
15 Restricted (such as open space, TPZ)
16 Vacant (such as desert, unused acreage)
17 TOTAL (Sum ofLines 13 through 16)
18 Possessory Interests
19 Oil, Gas, and Mineral
20 Other Secured Not Included Above; (such as historical
properties, restricted golf courses)
TOTAL (Sum of Lines 20, 21, and 22)
22 TOTAL SECURED ROLL UNITS (Sum of Lines 6,
21
9, 12, 17, and 21)
(continued)
Page 32
APPENDIX2
BUDGET, STAFF, ROLLAND ASSESSMENT APPEAL DATA 1994-95
TABLEC DISTRIBUTION OF LOCAL ROLL (continued) 23 Total Aircraft (general and certificated)
24 Boats
25 Personal Property/Fixtures (include leased equipment; count multiple locations under the same taxpayer as one.) 26 Possessory Interests
27 Manufactured Homes (include accessories on licensed
manufactured homes)
28
E~]~~§l~~[~~r;~r.~~~=~:~::~:;:r
29 Escapes from Prior Year' Rolls
30 Other (any unsecured not included above)
31
~t!r!g~~~CURED ROLL UNITS (Sum ofLines
32
f~~~~~~L LOCAL ROLL UNITS (Sum of
Page 33
1111111
••ttl
1•1111111
t~I1Hlit~ltt~~It~:I::~::fi~Hlj~j~~::~~:j:m:t@
~:~\~~lHlIIIIIIlf\~j\\~~\)j)j)j\))j\jUi\1lj)~)j)j\jlllifl\])j
BUDGET, STAFF, ROLLAND ASSESSMENTAPPEAL DATA 1994-95
TABLED RELATED WORKLOAD INDICATORS 1 Reappraisable Single Family Residence Transfers
2 Total Reappraisable Transfers (all other property types)
3 Jurisdictions Issuing Building Permits
4 Total Building Permits Received
5 New Assessments or Reassessments Resulting from Permits
6 New Assessments from New Construction Discovered Without Permits
7 Single-Family Residences (subject to Proposition 8 treatment, both new and
continuing)
8 Multi-Family Residences
9 Commercial
10 Industrial ·
11 Rural
12 Others (not included above)
13
TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS {Sum of Lines 7 through 12)
14 Prop. 8 Units Carried over from Previous Years
15 New Prop. 8 Units in 1994-95 (sum of lines 14 and 15 should equal line 13)
16 Properties Affected by Misfortune or Calamity
17 Eminent Domain Replacement Properties in 1994-95
18 Propositions 60, 90, or 110 Claims Filed
19 Appealed Units on which work was done in the 1994-95 Fiscal Year (Note this is
not the same as Table E. Some counties require an application to be filed on each
parcel; others allow an application to cover several parcels--an appraisal unit.)
20 Property Splits
21 New Subdivision Lots
22 Roll Corrections Processed in 1994-95 for All Rolls {both secured and unsecured)
(continued)
Page 34
APPENDIX2
BUDGET, STAFF, ROLLAND ASSESSMENT APPEAL DATA 1994-95
APPENDIX2
TABLED RELATED WORKLOAD INDICATORS (continued) 23
Boats (Include only boats that are assessed; exclude low-valued vessels that are not
assessed; include documented vessels assessed pursuant to R&T §227 and vessels
reported on the Vessel Property Statement (Line 37).) ·
24 General Aircraft (exclude exempt historical aircraft.)
25
Certificated Aircraft
26
27
28
29
Direct Billing Appraisals
Business Property Field Appraisals (501 estimates of non-filing taxpayers)
Annual Racehorse Tax Returns mailed
Property Statements that result in assessments (excluding Lines 28 through 33)
30
Other Business Property Assessments Not Included Above
31
Total Business Property Assessments (Sum ofLines 23 through 30)
32 Vessel Property Statements (for vessels that cost over $30,000)
33
Audits as of July 1, 1995 (include current year plus the last three
34
35
36
37
3 8 Audits Com leted this Fiscal Year
39 Audits Waived this Fiscal Year
40 TOTAL AUDITS COMPLETED AND WAIVED (sum of
Lines 38 and 39
41 Audits Carried Over to Next Fiscal Year without Waivers
subtract Line 40 from Line 3 7
4
Count multiple locations under the same taxpayer as one.
Page 35
111ll!lillllllll11111
ill[(tl
BUDGET, STAFF, ROLLANDASSESSMENTAPPE4LDATA 1994-95
APPENDIX2
TABLEE ASSESSMENT APPEAL ACTIVITY 1 Number of Real Property Residential Appeals (not
number of units appealed)
2 Number of Real Property Commercial Appeals
*
3 Number of Real Property Industrial Appeals *
4 Number of Real Property Rural Appeals*
5 Number ofBusiness Property Appeals (e.g., personal
property and fixtures)
6 Number of Other Appeals (not included above)
7 Total Number of Appeals (Sum ofLines 1through6)
8 Number of Appeals Withdrawn
9 Number of Appeals with No Appearance by Applicants
10 Number of Invalid Appeals (filed but later deemed invalid)
11 Number of Appeals Resolved by Stipulations
12 Number of Appeals Heard, Assessment Reduced
(excluding stipulations)
13 Number of Appeals Heard, Assessment Sustained
14 Number of Appeals Heard, Assessment Increased
15 Total Number of Appeals Resolved (Sum of Lines 8
through 14)
16 Outstanding Appeals Carried Over to Next Fiscal Year
(subtract Line 15 from Line 7)
17 Number ofDecisions Appealed to Court
This table has been changed to try to determine action taken during the 1994-95 fiscal year. Please note
that the regular appeal period for the 1994-95 Fiscal Year was July 2, 1994, to September 15, 1994.
*
If it is a total property appeal, then include the business property with the real property number.
Page 36
BUDGET, STAFF. ROLL AND ASSESSMENTAPPEAL DATA 1994-95
APPENDIX2
TABLEF ASSESSMENT APPEALS BOARDS Does your county Board of Supervisors sit as a local board of equalization?
0Yes
If no, indicate the number of assessment appeals boards appointed by the Board of
Supervisors (separate from the Board of Supervisors). Indicate the number of hearing officers appointed by the assessment appeals board. (Do not include members of either the Board of Supervisors or assessment appeals board.) COMMENTS Page 37
0No