OCR Text |
Show Assessors7 Lists Show Great Increase in the 1 Values of Utah Property During Last 20 Yel For the Past Two Decades De-cades the Various Interests In-terests of the State Have Had a Steady, Gradual Growth and Expansion, Bringing in Many Dollars. A COMPARISON of the a.H3cased valuation of all property In the slate of Utah for Hie last twenty vcuru sliowa an Inercupo from ijlOG, 110,370 In 1890, to $200.29!).-209 $200.29!).-209 In 1912. Since 1900 the Increase has been gradual each year, but Cor the pei1ol between 1890 and JS99, Inclusive, the amount fluctuated. Tn the last three yeara the valuations under each of the ten general licada used In campIIInR the figures, have shown a general Increase with the exception of the assessment on power companion, whtcji hus droppHtl from $R,70J,6SS in 1910, to ?l,CS7,ool In H'12. While real natale :ip.-:rs3mens for the last year show :in Increase of approximately approxi-mately 52,500,000, improvements on real estate show a decrease of $1,500,000 j since the assessment of i'JH. Tn the net proceeds from mines the assessment In 1010 was 5-100,000 greater limn In 1.911, but tho J 01 assessment shows an Increase In-crease of $1,100,000 over 1911 and approximately ap-proximately 5500,000 ovp.r 1910, Tho greatest percentage of lnere:iso in tlic total asHetamoiit was Jn 1S91. when it amounted to 17.7 per cnt. The next greatest wan In 1907, when the incrca-sc UKgrcxated nearly 10 per cent. The greatest great-est decrease was In 1S9 I. when It amounted amount-ed 518,000,000, nearly HJ per cent. In tho assessed valuation of counties In 1912. a decrease of SinO.OOO is shown In Ouri'leld county, -100,000 In Grand county, $2.,000 in Morgan county, $17,000 In San Juan county. 51S0.00O In f-'anpete county. 5150.000 In Utah county, rjnd $2:j,000 In Wayne county. All other counties of Total Assessment 1912 By Counties Hjl m 2 g 3 2 pi r Q S Box Elder I 2,894.634 1.04I.0RT 2.00S.5GI I 5.093,227 t SS.Slfl 50.000 717 " rtfTTTjjM Beaver ......... 4fi5 7SS 319.105 1,178.255 670.85B 8.007 14.2D7 ?4i SO 10.060 Cacho I .1.9(M..U0 1,713,810 2,326,078 .'H1.51S 11.900 "l-Mg H4.fc0 J........ 12.204 fl Carl on . 1 OSS 963 349.379 U0.39l 1.212.05G 12.5 Ifi 4W V-.'V,;, ' s".5 18,00$ Davis 2.658.2G0 044.475 037.041 l.Mi.OOg 20. 7 & .017 812 1.1..10 12:15l V Emery 833,029 2G7.520 775 163 I 791,538 !,o32 -U91I o I 1(U05 ,H (Hi-fluid I 2S5.500 J24.9C0 . 357.300 I ' S Gn nd .. . . .. 171 003 SC.3S3 3.50,172 S01 189 2,o98 2 418 83 j, 52fi m Iron J 75G.30!) 251.070 913.475 fiSSl 10 17.013 j.linC; 400 9,402 kM Juab ...........13.008.035 9377785 3,453,70 ( 1,211.495 I2.5SI 2o.l74 406 11.97, 700.451 20.347 M Moikoii ......... I 512,248 I SR2.S03 385,951 500,719 . J ! V" lii M Pluto I 2r,l.9fit 79.927 rJ3,G04 47,353 f 4b2 I 3.5!jo G S.9SS -116 SlQ M gaLftke'V... IsSS ('G.V07,379 hlO.801 I S43,SS4 if&OGS '230.045 4.525.258 K.'ooj sfl KSpfir. witBS 1.08:8! i.5? .,l .""5oi J lSlt ?-SS-g? ?5:g JSS 1. 2 18 2 5S$ I 453 978- l&sM 'YoYiii 1 Tooele ..111111111 'mfto S70.ii02 V.WS.dM 2,208.134 ! 15.934 I 42.822 42G 17.2M 40.749 j&s!! M PSr. f aSaS Si i' fi 72 : 4.. hra i h$& rviis I iSr :;;;:::::( 7j s.BSj3S .v.ao ja ;?f ,iVSr :J Tot;,s !(;n, 124,77o43.501.073" '47.203.027 31.S2fi.091 333.21S l.18.723 155,248 11.087,551 17.460.924 f3S5.57l tfM alncltitlcs 53.257.188 assessment of supir, water and infnlnc companies. M i tho stale show an IncrcaHo In asacsscrl aflHMseil valuation by counties for J ' t : valuatloii In tiio pasi. year ruiiBliiff In and "12. thc. compurullvo Bncral sub- amo il from 519,000 In Kane county, to divisions or assessments for the past $' 700 000 h Pa'.t Lake county. three yearn and thy total assessments The tables ' slvcn herewith show tho for tlio past Iwcnty-thrcc years: Comparative Assessments for Three Years 1910. 1911. 1912. P.r.at ovine $ G2v0 17,476 :J B3,514,959 $ 6G.I24.775 KiinrovemenH ". ::9,7SG,917 45,119,001 43.501,073 1- Si l n oner V' 42 565.888 1,!S0.S56 47,203,027 rMI?o s 9 . .. ................. 26 775 422 . 28.567.834 . .3I..826.091 301 807. 32.958 533,218 Car companies V.S2.5o 2,0Ll 3So.n71 .rola3 ?IS6,354,505 5194,304,660 .;200,299,207 -: g Total xssessnient ffj Twenty-Three r is Total nascssmcnl, 1S90 i Total oascssnicnt, J SOL .........j; Total assessment, 1S92 ......, i' Total assertHnicnt, 1893 i Total assessment, 1S94 Total .'LsiiCEsmcnt, 1895 2 Total aasessmcnl. 1S9G 3 Total ;insessment. 1897 j Total anscKBinent, 1S9S i Total assessment, 1399 ........ Total aaHossmcnt, 1900 i Total assessment, 1901 Total assessment, 190:'. , i Totul ussessmeiil, 1903 j Total assessment. 1904 , Total a-saessincnt, 1905 ........ 1 Total astscesment. 1906 j Total nscssmcnt. 1907 l Total apscssmenl, 11158 i Total asscssnipnt, 1909 1 Total assessment, 1910 Total assessment, 1911 Total assessment. 1312 ........2 I Assessed Valuation Property Including Additional Assessments v the Year 1911 1 Irson"l E-tpresa Power Jset procecfic Corporal J der'lllll'' 2.37- ' l.SS J.tSV.M. 4.760l23l 60,000 55,634 654 1,311 51,625 10 Cache 5.S03.240 1.620.010 2.233.530 SS2.1..4 31,991 JS.bSo 170,-05 ,05, 8, Carbon 913,689 1,107.075 0S3.03L VV," Vc'&i ,n sVkm i?.103 j3..-9 j, Davis . 2,573.340 015,1 10 3,032.010 3-2 "' -S'o-Scl H'llH T 8tf'D9 y2 Kmery i;5.t;o9 3G4.GS.- 512,529 79S,0SO 9,3o8 2,.8 S0 10,40., 2,- S:S IS ""fj - 5: u 1111111:111 ?fe v.; SS!u S i.S : f Morgan'.::: :: Am 2211023 407.S20 w o,si u4 .30,051 . . i Pllltc . 279.039 131,115 209.7SI 47,103 464 U5 . 1.2..S Slu . "h!?1 X.ikc 9.11S1G95 23.I5M35 17 '$1 '"iwM ' 30.734 S27,7r.S 13273 '"'IfiMo "'i.VsV.Ma bV.OOS 91;j Tooele1.. 11111 'JI'Sls'-J 3:oSoloS7 1.05,895 2,152.721 4 17 J6.1B9 494 17.M5 28.875 32.71 6; i-i i. I i"n "KC.'Sft 1 O'M, 70S S,li9 40 oS,41i 2,, ; f" -1.75., 5GIJ 5.2M:290 luTO.SIS "2,942,509 31.0S2 332.G12 4,329 551,557 67J.1SG 44 GSS 15, Waitch J.12S.415 407.145 800.S24 IG3.705 1.633 S.47. 20 26.000 2.GM '1 WaShlnglon . . 329.905 241.5S5 rV'- ' webcr" : :::::: jimw 22.146 ""i 12.5 "-'m 111:11:1:1: j9, Tolal $63,514,930 545,119,001 S4.4S0.S5G 52S.567.384 ? 342,958 $ 1,609,380 .1 155.SS1 ? 3,861,385 5 6,342.359 5 370.511 J1941 |